Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Monday 1 April.

Mr. Speaker: As Bills Nos. 2 to 5 have blocking motions, I shall, with the leave of the House, deal with them in a single group.

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

LINCOLN CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 18 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Drugs (Importation and Distribution)

Mr. Sackville: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the setting up of multi-agency task forces dedicated to the prevention of illegal drug importation and distribution.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): We have no plans to establish a task force of this kind. There is already very close and successful co-operation between Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the police in combating drug trafficking, through the central drugs intelligence unit and in other ways. But I shall certainly look closely at American experience of its task force programme in the course of a visit which I shall be paying to the United States in a few weeks' time.

Mr. Sackville: Does my hon. Friend agree that often the major drug traffickers can be indentified only by their assets and banking transactions? Will he and his Treasury colleagues devise some formal structure to enable the Inland Revenue to share information with other agencies so that those investigating drugs and other organised crimes do not continue to operate with their hands tied behind their backs?

Mr. Mellor: As my hon. Friend knows, we are considering giving the courts improved powers to confiscate the assets of those convicted of serious crimes, including, of course, drug trafficking. The availability of information about financial matters and the stage at which that information can be made available will be a key part of that process.

Mr. Corbett: As there has been an increase of about 65 per cent. in the last three years in the number of registered addicts, apart from those who are not on the register, how can the hon. Gentleman be so indolent about the matter, remembering that 1,000 Customs officer posts have been got rid of in the last five years?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman falls below his normal level in what is a travesty of the situation. We have tried to ensure that the register of drug addicts is an accurate reflection of the number of people who are addicted. Indeed, we have been encouraging family doctors to notify addict numbers. It turns logic on its head if, as we seek to improve the accuracy of the register, we are criticised for the number of persons on the register, many of whom will have been addicted to drugs for some years.
As regards Customs officers, the hon. Gentleman well knows that there is all the difference in the world between manpower reductions on static checks and an increase in intelligence. For example, there has been an increase of nearly two thirds in the number of officers engaged in intelligence work on heroin. That has led to a dramatic increase in the number of seizures of drugs and convictions of drug importers.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are approaching the season of festivals, open-air concerts and similar gatherings and that drugs are often distributed at such events? Does he agree that chief constables in areas where such festivities take place must co-ordinate their activities to deal with the problem?

Mr. Mellor: I am sure that chief constables, whose duty it is to do what my hon. Friend asks, will take careful note of the commonsense point that he raises.

Mr. Alton: Given the success of the Department in sequestrating the funds of the National Union of Mineworkers, is it not time for the Government to apply the same rigours to sequestrating the funds of those who sell and ply heroin, who cause enormous misery, yet who are able to salt their money away in safe havens and who often avoid extradition from countries, such as Spain, where extradition agreements are non-existent? If the Minister agrees that it is time for a rigorous attitude to be taken, when does he intend to introduce legislation?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question would have been more pertinent without the rather shallow simile that he applied at the beginning. I understand that always he finds these temptations hard to resist. He has put to me the idea of improving procedures for the confiscation of assets as if that were a new thought. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been saying for 12 months now that we are working actively on finding a new power. Twelve years ago the House thought that it had solved the problem. It is clear now that it had not. We are now considering the Hodgson report. The hon. Gentleman will know — [HON.


MEMBERS: "Too long".]—as should one or two of those who seem to be involved in organised barracking on an important topic—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Nonsense.

Mr. Mellor: —that it is much easier to define a problem than to resolve it. We are working hard on the problem.

Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend do something about the internal battles which are carried on between the police and Customs and Excise in the investigation and prosecution of drug offences?

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. As far as I am aware, there is good liaison between Customs and Excise and the police. I believe that some accounts to the contrary are overdone. He may be interested to know that about six months ago the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis set up a high-level committee to further that liaison between the police and Customs and Excise. I believe that that committee is working to good effect.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is it not right that the Government must take a major share of the blame for the substantial increase in drug addiction that has occurred every year since they came to office? The Government have reduced the number of Customs officers, allowing more cocaine and heroin to enter the country. They have failed properly to co-ordinate the activities of Customs and police officers. Most importantly, they have created the social conditions, in terms of unemployment, which have allowed drug abuse to flourish. How does the hon. Gentleman feel as the Minister who has presided over the largest ever increase in drug addiction, deaths and destruction of young people's lives?

Mr. Mellor: Perhaps it was an improvement when the hon. Gentleman was saying "Nonsense" from a sedentary position instead of rising and engaging in an all-purpose rant that will not enhance his reputation in this place. However, if that helps him with the Knowsley, North reselection procedure, we shall not mind too much.

Hampshire Constabulary

Mr. Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received for an increase in the establishment of the Hampshire constabulary.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): Last year, following a reorganisation of the force, the Hampsshire police authority applied for approval for three additional police posts. We welcome the reorganisation, but my right hon. and learned Friend was not prepared to agree to the additional posts, because further consideration was being given to recruiting civilian staff, which might release more police officers for operational duties.

Mr. Hunter: Despite the exemplary dedication and professionalism of the Hampshire constabulary, the crime rate in the county, and especially in Basingstoke, has risen considerably. The media locally and nationally make much of the fact that this is due partially to existing manpower being inadequate. Does my hon. Friend agree that at the very least existing funding should be made

available so that police forces can operate at full establishment level, which is not now the position? Preferably, more funds and greater establishment should be encouraged.

Mr. Shaw: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the overall pattern of recruitment into the police force has improved markedly since 1979, with over 9,000 officers additional to establishment. The Hampshire establishment has increased by 130 police posts since 1979. However, I understand my hon. Friend's view that there should be further examination of the proposals which the Hampshire constabulary seeks to make. If it has found the opportunities for civilian recruitment, there might well be a case for re-examining what it has said.

Mr. Colvin: Is my hon. Friend aware that yesterday consideration of the Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Bill, to provide tougher penalties for drug traffickers, was completed, and that during the course of that consideration my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department mentioned—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is directed to the establishment of the Hampshire constabulary.

Mr. Colvin: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. During the course of considering the Bill in Committee, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department mentioned that one part of the Government's policy was to ensure that the police in Hampshire and elsewhere have the powers to enforce such legislation. Is my hon. Friend confident that the Hampshire police have those powers? It is no use passing laws in this place if the police are unable to enforce them.

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. It is my right hon. and learned Friend's duty to examine every police establishment to ensure that it is capable of executing its duties efficiently and economically I can assure my hon. Friend that this review of establishment takes place regularly with a view to ensuring that the legislative load can be carried on a sufficient number of shoulders.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the question relates to Hampshire.

Mr. Skinner: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary question is directed to Hampshire. I can include the New Forest and the little ponies as well, if you wish me to do so.
Is the Minister aware that the problem faced by the Hampshire police force must have been evident for the past 12 months? If the Hampshire police force was understaffed and undermanned, and if it seemed unlikely that it would be able to resolve all the problems facing it, why did the Minister and the Home Secretary agree to send several thousand policemen, including many from Hampshire, to the coalfields of Yorkshire and elsewhere to try to smash the National Union of Mineworkers?

Mr. Shaw: I think that that is an uneconomic supplementary question, and that it should be closed.

Children (Deportation)

Miss Maynard: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been deported or removed from the United Kingdom since 1979.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): Few people under the age of 18 are either deported or removed. I regret that figures are not available to show either their number or the number who leave with their parents against whom such action has to be taken.

Miss Maynard: Is the Minister aware that large numbers of children who were born in Britain or who are British citizens are being driven out of this country because of the way in which the immigration laws operate? Is that not an absolute disgrace? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman agree to review the whole issue?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Lady is entirely wrong. All those children who were born in Britain before 1 January 1983 and who therefore automatically became British citizens — although perhaps their parents were here illegally or temporarily —could not be deported, because British citizens cannot be deported.

Mr. Budgen: I remind my hon. and learned Friend that the present immigration rules are a substantial relaxation of the promise made by the Tory party in 1979. If the application of those rules were relaxed in the face of pressure, such as that put upon my hon. and learned Friend by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), there would be real resentment and anger in those areas which have had to bear the brunt of heavy immigration.

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend has gone very wide of the question on the Order Paper. The Government have conducted a well-balanced immigration policy. For that reason, immigration was not a big issue at the last election. We can take pride in that policy. We should try to talk about these issues moderately. It is sad that the Opposition often try to make party political points out of them. We have every reason to believe that we are carrying out a well-balanced policy.

Mr. Ashley: While the Minister is considering the plight of deported children, will he consider the position of the 25 unaccompanied teenagers who are confined to closed camps in Hong Kong? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman admit some of those teenagers to Britain and urge other Governments to admit the rest of them?

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman has gone wide of the question as well. We are anxiously studying the position of those people in camps in Hong Kong. At the moment, however, we are discussing our immigration rules in so far as they bear on young children and may result in their deportation. In fact, few children are deported.

Sir John Wells: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that about a million young people, including under-age children, come to this country every year as so-called language students and that about 10 per cent. of them do not return home? What does my hon. and learned Friend propose to do about that?

Mr. Waddington: I shall look into any cases that my hon. Friend brings to my attention.
I must revert to the question. I am sorry that we do not have the statistics that would enable me to give an exact answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), but I hope that the House has got matters into perspective. Between 1979 and 1984, only 23 persons in

all were deported as dependants under section 3(5)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971. Perhaps none of them was under 18, or perhaps one or two were.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister agree that women with children are often placed in very distressing circumstances because of the sex discrimination in our immigration laws? Before the European Court tells him to do so, will he undertake to remove sex discrimination from within the existing immigration rules?

Mr. Waddington: We are talking about the power to deport children. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may be referring to, he is certainly not talking about anything which has the remotest connection with the power to deport children. He is suggesting that we should relax the immigration rules to allow young men to come here, using marriage as a device, and to go on to the labour market. That would not commend itself to the vast majority of the British people.

Mr. Terlezki: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the vast majority of immigrants, from wherever they may have come, are more than happy to be living in a free and democratic country? The Labour party is using immigrants, irrespective of colour, to gain cheap votes and to make propaganda in this House.

Mr. Waddington: I repeat what I said before. It is most unfortunate when the Opposition stir up the immigration issue, because the vast majority of those who have settled here are, as my hon. Friend has said, very proud to be members of our community.

Mr. Dubs: The Minister referred to a well-balanced policy. Is he seriously suggesting that it is well balanced if, in 1983, it resulted in 137 children who wanted to come into this country being detained at ports because the Minister wanted them to be removed? Is the Minister denying that, at least from time to time, both he and his Department seek to remove young children? In my constituency a six-year-old boy is under the threat of removal, not with his mother, but separately, because the Minister will not allow him to stay here while his immigration status is being resolved.

Mr. Waddington: Although the Opposition always wax so eloquent about these matters, they never tell even half the story. They talk about the number of people who are deported now, but they never mention the number of people who were deported prior to 1979. One finds that the figures are very alike. They talk about the number of people removed, but they never mention the number of people removed prior to 1979. Again, the figures are very similar. I wish that the Opposition would realise that this is a sensitive issue and would tell the House the whole truth.

Shops Acts

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce the Government's final response to the Auld committee report.

Mr. Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the Auld report on Sunday trading.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to announce the Government's final conclusions on changes in the Shops Act 1950.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to deal with the law relating to shop opening hours; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and he has agreed that there will be a debate on the Auld committee's report as soon as possible after Easter, in which I shall announce the Government's intentions in respect of its recommendations.
Since the report was published, we have received 528 letters about the report, of which 166 favoured its recommendations and 362 opposed them.
I do not think that any significant conclusions can be drawn from these figures.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind, during his consideration of his response to the Auld report, that the introduction of universal Sunday trading may well result in the creation of many more part-time jobs? Will he therefore join the lobby for two other essential reforms: first, the extension of job-splitting and work-sharing schemes; and, secondly, the abolition of the wages councils?

Mr. Brittan: As I wish to retain my present job, I had better not join any lobbies for the moment. However, I understand the force of my hon. Friend's question and have some sympathy with it.

Mr. Freeman: We are very pleased to have news of a debate in the House of Commons. However, before that debate takes place, will my right hon. and learned Friend give thought to the alternative approach of allowing each local authority to make up its own mind about whether or not to permit Sunday trading?

Mr. Brittan: I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the number of letters he has received and the ratio for and against Sunday trading reflect the acute anxiety of the public that complete liberalisation will destroy the traditional British Sunday?

Mr. Brittan: I am not sure that I would draw that conclusion from those letters. It is always extremely dangerous to judge the effect of a proposal or the views of the country about it on the basis of such letters.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Michael Forsyth.

Mr. Rhodes James: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Yes, Mr. Rhodes James. I am sorry. I have a lousy cold.

Mr. Rhodes James: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that although many of us would welcome changes which would remove anomalies in the present law, some of us would be strongly and wholly opposed to unrestricted Sunday opening?

Mr. Brittan: I respect and understand that view, but my hon. Friend will, of course, look at those parts of the Auld report which examined the possibility of partial changes and came down against them.

Mr. Coleman: As such legislation as might flow from this would have the result of allowing shops in Wales to open on Sundays, and as that would be a matter of controversy, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider introducing into any legislation a provision such as that for the Sunday opening of public houses — a referendum of the people concerned?

Mr. Brittan: I am not an enthusiast for referendums of any kind, but I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many Conservative Members will be pleased that he is not taking too seriously the representations that he has received on the Auld report, because it is our clear view from our constituencies that the overwhelming majority of the people we represent are strongly in favour of Sunday trading and the reforms?

Mr. Brittan: I am aware of the extent of that feeling as well. It is not that I am not taking the representations seriously; it is merely that I do not necessarily regard them as representative.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Home Secretary aware that Labour Members have been inundated with letters from bodies such as the Lord's Day Observance Society? Now that the Government are beginning to wobble, the Home Secretary should beware of a combination of the Church and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.

Mr. Brittan: I am sure that that is a apt warning, and, coming from the quarter that it does, I shall take it in the spirit in which it was intended.

Crime Prevention

Mr. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how his Department intends to improve crime prevention.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The crime prevention unit, and the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention, which I chair, are actively engaged in the development and evaluation of a range of precise measures to prevent burglary, theft and auto crime. The results of those initiatives are disseminated to police forces and other local agencies involved in the prevention of crime.

Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but may I suggest one further immediate initiative that he can take? We are all grateful for the marvellous increase in police numbers in Britain, which the former Home Secretary instituted, but is not the time now ripe for a massive increase in the police force, as that is one of the most socially desirable increases in manpower that Britain can have?

Mr. Shaw: I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks and his tribute to our noble Friend Lord Whitelaw for his achievement in increasing police numbers since 1979. I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise that the effectiveness of the police force depends not just on numbers, but on deployment and skills applies. I am sure


he will recognise that, for example, the use of civilians to allow more officers to be deployed on operational matters is also an important contribution.

Mr. Soley: Why will the Minister not be clear and straight with the House in the way in which he frequently is in other matters? He knows that the answer to the question is that the Government have no plans to improve crime prevention. They have cut back on just about every scheme designed to prevent crime in Britain that has ever been devised. It is no wonder that the crime rate is going up, and it is no wonder also that people are getting fed up with the Government's approach to law and order when it is so clearly an abysmal, dismal failure.

Mr. Shaw: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well versed in dismal failures. However, I remind him of the range of activities that the Government have introduced. There are over 3,000 individual neighbourhood watch schemes and 200 crime prevention panels, including 60 schemes in Cumbria. The Government have a total commitment to the improvement of police establishments, conditions and pay, in order to continue the fight against crime. I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman would see that dissolve if he were in power.

Dr. Glyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important things is neighbourhood crime prevention schemes? Will he give that idea every encouragement, as that is the only way in which the police can be adequately informed, and by which people can know exactly what is happening in their areas?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I fully support his view. It is vital that citizens, too, play their part in preventing crime.

Civil Defence

Mr. Patrick Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the number of full and part-time civil defence staff employed in Mid-Glamorgan.

Mr. Giles Shaw: There are two full-time emergency planning staff employed by Mid-Glamorgan county council on civil defence duties.

Mr. Thompson: Does my hon. Friend accept that the level of staffing that he has described in Mid-Glamorgan is quite inadequate? Although the levels in many counties, including my county of Norfolk, are higher, there must be a good case for my hon. Friend to take steps to increase the levels of civil defence staffing so that counties, including Mid-Glamorgan, can meet their obligations under the 1983 civil defence regulations.

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right, but perhaps I can enhance his comments by saying that the situation in Mid-Glamorgan is little short of lamentable. That local authority seems to take absolutely no precautions to provide some civil defence protection for its citizens. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be taking steps to see that this matter is put right, not just in Mid-Glamorgan, but in every authority where there is a deficiency.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister confirm that the Home Office's senior civil defence organiser recently visited local authorities in Wales? What was the purpose of that visit? Did the organiser visit Mid-Glamorgan? Is the

Minister aware that the whole of Wales is a nuclear-free zone? The Minister is wasting his time trying to convince local authorities in Wales to adopt such a stupid and irrelevant programme.

Mr. Shaw: I appreciate the hon. Lady's views, but I should inform her that the civil defence adviser visited Mid-Glamorgan to try to persuade that authority to complete the questionnaire, as it is the only authority in England and Wales that has not yet done so. Many nuclear-free zone authorities have returned their questionnaires and intend to make some provision for civil defence. I trust that the people of Wales will enjoy some measure of protection.

Mr. Terlezki: Does my hon. Friend agree that a nuclear-free zone in Wales is a big joke there, and is not, and never will be, accepted? It is purely Labour party political propaganda. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] Will my hon. Friend tell me about his Department's allocation for civil defence in South Glamorgan for 1985–86?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Mid-Glamorgan.

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for that correction, as it enables me to say that I cannot give my hon. Friend the figure for South Glamorgan. However, I shall write to him about that. Nevertheless, I assure him that we have every intention of seeing that a proper level of civil defence preparation is put in hand. Nuclear-free zones are entirely bogus.

Video Recordings Act

Mr. Sumberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take immediate steps to ensure that the classification of videos is completed without delay so that the Video Recordings Act can come into effect.

Mrs. Jill Knight: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to bring into force the Video Recordings Act 1984; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellor: The Video Recordings Act provides for the classification of video works under arrangements to be made by an authority to be designated by the Secretary of State. My right hon. and learned Friend proposes to designate the principal officers of the British Board of Film Censors.
Following the recent death of the president of the board, Lord Harlech, a successor is being actively sought. We hope that it will be possible for an appointment to be made very soon and for particulars of the proposed designation to be laid before Parliament shortly thereafter.

Mr. Sumberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. In the light, in particular, of the judge's remarks in the case of the Fox, is my hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient staff are available at the British Board of Film Censors to complete this vital work so that the designations are on the record and on the statute book?

Mr. Mellor: Increased numbers of staff are being taken on by the BBFC in anticipation of designation. The video referred to in the trial of the rapist known as the Fox has already been declared obscene under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, so the availability of that video and the bringing into force of the Act are not linked.

Mrs. Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that pornography is a drug, and a very dangerous drug at that, as it rots the mind and can persuade individuals to commit great violence and cruelty against innocent people? Will he note that it was not only the judge in the Fairlie trial who linked pornography with the crime, but that many other judges in similar trials in the last 20 years have made that link?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that has a lot to do with the Video Recordings Act.

Mrs. Knight: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, it was the video which was linked in the Fairlie trial with the crime committed. I am merely asking my hon. Friend to bear in mind that all these factors mean that we need action very quickly indeed.

Mr. Mellor: As I said in answer to the original question, I am anxious that we should get this designation procedure completed as soon as possible.

Mr. Ryman: Does the Minister not appreciate that that will not begin to solve the problem? On the one hand, "tendency to deprave and corrupt" is a difficult matter to prove in prosecutions under the Obscene Publications Act. On the other hand, juries will not convict unless a more intelligent view is taken of the need to prosecute at all in this class of case.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Obscene Publications Act. One of the attractions of the Act is that the issue will be tried by magistrates. The content of the video is not a matter of which magistrates will usually have to take account. The question at issue will be whether the video has been certificated by the designated authority. Thereby, many of the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman has properly brought before the House are circumvented.

Civil Defence

Dr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is a civil defence emergency centre in Mid Glamorgan.

Mr. Giles Shaw: There is no civil defence emergency centre in Mid-Glamorgan.

Dr. Blackburn: Will my hon. Friend tell the House when we should expect operational centres to be available in Mid-Glamorgan, because it is important, in the context of civil defence, that they are there for any other disasters that may take place in the county of Mid-Glamorgan?

Mr. Shaw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that this is a disastrous state of affairs. There should be eight such centres in the county of Mid-Glamorgan. We have already taken the initial steps by contacting the local authority in order to put things right.

Dr. Twinn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he takes to monitor the implementation of the Civil Defence Regulations 1983 in the Principality of Wales.

Mr. Shaw: The civil defence questionnaire last year to all county authorities provided a basis for the development of further monitoring. This will be achieved primarily by visits from the civil defence adviser to the Home Office, but also by questionnaires, as appropriate.

Dr. Twinn: Will my hon. Friend announce minimum standards which must be reached within a set time limit within the Principality?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend should know that we have agreed to require all local authorities, including those in the Principality, to set down their plans for implementing the 1983 regulations by the end of this year.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: In so far as the authorities are prepared to implement the civil defence regulations, will the Minister also make available to those authorities the details of what would happen in the event of the nuclear winter, which details I believe his Department is at the moment suppressing?

Mr. Shaw: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have had discussions with most of the local authority associations on various matters connected with civil defence, including that particular theory. The hypothesis of the nuclear winter has yet to be properly validated, and until it is so validated the Government cannot take a view on it.

Industrial Disputes (Police Operations)

Mr. Ashby: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from chief constables about how they plan to review and learn from police operations during the coal dispute.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Chief officers of police are reviewing police operations during the miners strike both individually and collectively through the Association of Chief Police Officers. These reviews will be completed as soon as possible and the Department will be keeping in touch with their progress.

Mr. Ashby: Will my hon. Friend please also consider the financial aspects of policing in the different authorities?

Mr. Shaw: I understand that we have a lot to learn about the way in which financial consequences can properly be accounted for and dealt with.

Mr. Barron: Now that the miners's strike has ended—even officially it seems—will the Minister reconsider his Department's decision not to have a public inquiry into the strike? May we have a full public inquiry so that people can properly examine policing methods in the last 12 months?

Mr. Shaw: No, I shall not reconsider that decision. A full review of what occurred is being conducted by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and each area will receive its own report on the different aspects of the strike.

Shop Acts

Sir Fergus Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received regarding the reform of shop hours' legislation.

Mr. Mellor: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my hon. Friend take into account representations by people all over the country, because opinions on the issue vary in the different regions?

Mr. Mellor: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: As it is likely that Sunday trading will be introduced—I am sorry to say — will my hon. Friend consider insisting that stores which are allowed to trade on a Sunday close on another day of the week?

Mr. Mellor: All opinions will be considered.

Divided Families Campaign (Ministerial Meeting)

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the meeting of the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington) with the Divided Families Campaign on 4 February.

Mr. Waddington: The Bangladesh Divided Families Campaign from Oldham requested the meeting to voice its concern that families are separated by the operation of immigration control. I listened carefully to the views expressed on this and other topics, but I had to make the point that families are separated not by the actions of the Government, but by the actions of those who choose to come here leaving their families behind.
I told the campaign that it was necessary for those claiming to be dependants to establish their entitlement and I could not set aside the requirement of the immigration rules and allow people waiting in the queue, or who had had their application refused, to come here when they had not shown their entitlement.

Mr. Lamond: Is the Minister aware that the Divided Families Campaign now operates on a national basis because so many families are affected? Does the Minister accept that we are talking about the humane treatment of families, which is quite separate from other immigration matters? Is the Minister aware that he could take a decisive step to help those families if he ensured that the queue to be interviewed was shortened and if he placed more interviewing officers in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan?

Mr. Waddington: Yes. The problem is intractable. There is a limit to the resources available to process entry clearance applications. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the year before last we sent an additional entry clearance officer to Dhaka. In the last two winters, two extra entry clearance officers have been helping with the preparation of appeals statements there so that entry clearance officers had more time to do the interviewing.
One must compare the situation today with that of a few years ago. Generally, queue lengths today compare favourably with the queue lengths back in 1979 and 1978. However, a real problem exists in Dhaka because so many people in the queue are reapplicants. We do our best.

Mr. Kaufman: How can the Minister say that these families are not divided by the action of the Government, when the document leaked to The Guardian shows that there is a conspiracy in his Department, led by him, deliberately to spin out the queues and get round the law which allows people to exercise their right to come here? By the leaking of that document, a copy of which I have, has the hon. and learned Gentleman not been shown to be deliberately pursuing a restrictive and racist policy?

Mr. Waddington: It is this intemperate language which proves the point that I was making half an hour ago. It does not help when, time and time again, the right hon.

Gentleman gets up at Question Time, completely misrepresents the policy being pursued and completely obscures the fact that by and large that policy has been pursued by successive Governments. The truth of the matter is that the Labour Government realised perfectly well that there was a limit on the resources that could be dedicated to the job of entry clearance in Dhaka. We have followed exactly the same policy. We have recognised that there is that same limitation. Obviously, if we cannot devote unlimited manpower to doing the job there is a limit to the rate at which people will be admitted. It is as simple as that, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it perfectly well.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Malone: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Malone: During the course of her day, will my right hon Friend consider some of the industrial success stories that are coming out of Scotland? Does she accept that the order for £40 million shipping for Govan shipbuilders, the £50 million order placed at UEI and the continuing expansion of the electronics industry in Scotland are examples of the fact that the Government's policy is working, that Scottish industry is becoming more competitive and that the dismal Jimmies on the Opposition Benches should be ignored?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with what my hon. Friend says. Despite the coal strike, industrial production in Scotland was up 3 per cent. on a year ago and the Locate in Scotland office has now had £1 billion worth of inward investment. I add that to my hon Friend's good news.

Mr. James Lamond: If the Government have so many success stories to pick from, why was it necessary for them to select for the Saatchi and Saatchi Conservative party broadcast last night the firm of Ferranti in my constituency, which, far from benefiting from the Government's work, relied entirely on a f15 million cash injection by the Labour Government in 1975 to save it? The only contribution that this Government have made to Ferranti is to make it necessary for that firm to have widespread redundancies because of Government cutbacks in orders and a refusal to allow the firm, at the first request, to expand its high-tech training school by 20 places.

The Prime Minister: Ferranti runs a very successful operation. It is extremely efficient and has done well in getting defence orders here and overseas. It is to be congratulated on its performance under this Government.

Sir John Farr: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend noticed the press speculation over the weekend following the visit of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to Dublin? In view of the speculation, can my right hon. Friend assure the House and the country that we have no intention of doing anything other than


strengthening the bonds that bind the United Kingdom together and, moreover, that in no circumstances will this Government contemplate another Sunningdale?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The position is exactly as set out in the communiqué after the Chequers meeting of the Taoiseach and myself. There will be no constitutional change whatsoever in Northern Ireland unless it has the full consent of the people of Northern Ireland, who are part of the United Kingdom.

Dr. Owen: Does the Prime Minister accept the advice in the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee that any overall reduction in social security expenditure would cause grave problems? Does it not strongly recommend that if there are to be any reductions in one part of the budget they should be channelled to areas of high priority need? Is not any simplification a costly move? Will the Prime Minister assure all those who are worried that there will be no overall cuts?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the report was only published today. I have not read it in its entirety—but I understand, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman may have done so. I have read a summary, and I am not prepared to give any undertakings before the full report of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on his review is available. Any attempt to make us do so would be to deny both open government and a full discussion of matters which should be discussed.

Mr. Frank Cook: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cook: Can the Prime Minister spare a moment this afternoon to give this Chamber the benefit of her opinion on the disparaging comments made by her soul mate President Reagan in response to a considered statement by the Foreign Secretary on the star wars concept despite the fact that he admitted that he had not read it? Does she condone the abuse of the Geneva peace talks as a means of brow beating the President's opposition in the House of Representatives into authorising a budget allocation for just another means of delivering death to those who disagree with the United States?

The Prime Minister: The policy on the SDI is as I set it out after my meeting with President Reagan at Camp David, and as he set it out once again at a press conference when I was present. It has not changed in any way. Congress was right to reaffirm what President Reagan wanted for the MX missiles. It is right that the talks in Geneva are proceeding because of the strength and the will of the West, and not because of its weakness.
As the hon. Gentleman has criticised President Reagan, I must tell him that I thought that the United States acted with enormous restraint over the murder of one of its soldiers in Eastern Germany.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to reflect on the recent ballot of the National Union of Mineworkers? Is she aware that ever since Arthur Scargill became president every issue that has been put to the ballot has been lost? Is that not a wonderful example of how out of touch that man is with those whom he is supposed to represent?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. During the present leadership of the NUM, every one of four ballots has been lost. The leadership has also deprived its members of one year's salary, which is utterly disgraceful.

Mr. Kinnock: May I commend the launch of the Britain means Business campaign, which is intended to secure a transfusion of foreign capital into this country? Is the right hon. Lady aware that it would be sensible for her to help Britain more by changing the policies which have led to a £12,000 million a year haemorrhage of investment capital from this country since the day that she became Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: There was record investment in this country last year of £55 billion.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the right hon. Lady telling us that because there is an inflow we can do without the £50,000 million that has gone out of the country? Would it not be sensible to reintroduce policies — [Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members do not care about the betrayal of this country by people sending money out of it. Would it not be sensible to retain those funds so that we could generate much-needed investment and even more desperately needed jobs?

The Prime Minister: We had record investment in this country last year of £55 billion. We agree with the policy of putting some investments overseas — we need the income from them to repay the interest and dividends that have to go from this country because of the immense amounts of inward investment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman believes in inward investment, because it creates many jobs. However, I do not think that he understands anything about it.

Mr. Kinnock: What I do understand, and what the British people understand, is that while the Prime Minister has let those precious funds leave the country, unemployment has gone up to over 3 million. When will she change policies to bring it down?

The Prime Minister: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to pay for the interest that goes out?

Mr. Kinnock: By growth.

The Prime Minister: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to pay for the dividends and interest that go out on investment that comes in here? It is not paid for by growth but has to be paid across the exchanges in cash. The right hon. Gentleman proves that he has not a clue.

Mr. Rob Hayward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 15 January the Leader of the Opposition asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to resign when the pound fell by 1·5 cents? As the pound rose 4·5 cents yesterday, does my right hon. Friend expect the Leader of the Opposition to ask my right hon. Friend to be reinstated three times over?

The Prime Minister: The world exchange markets are taking a different view of the dollar and are realising that the underlying strength of the British economy is very good for investment. They have noted record output, record investment and a record standard of living. That augurs well for the future.

Mr. Freud: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Freud: In the light of the new agreement and partnership between Government and education announced by the Secretary of State for Education and Science on Tuesday, will the Prime Minister say what she intends to do in her role as a partner in the case of the teachers' dispute?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the teachers have been offered arbitration, but they have chosen not to accept it.

Mr. Evennett: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend share the anxiety of many of my constituents about the rising crime rate in London? Although I accept that the Government have done a great deal to fight crime, will she consider introducing additional measures to deal with the problem in London?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the number of police has been increased considerably, equipment has been increased and the deployment of the police force has been improved. There are more bobbies back on the beat. Tackling crime is a task for the whole community — nobody can opt out. Everything that the Government can do is being done, and will continue to be done.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: After her somewhat traumatic meeting with 25 young unemployed people from my constituency on Tuesday, does the Prime Minister accept that her suggestion that they move elsewhere and go into lodgings shows an amazing lack of knowledge of the level of unemployment in areas such as London and, if carried out, would be destructive of family life, which they value, and which the Prime Minister is supposed to support? In any event, are all of the 10,500 unemployed people in my constituency supposed to become industrial gipsies?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that these young people were told that in their area there

would be 800 more community programme jobs. They also had an opportunity, which is afforded to few, to meet a manager in Vauxhall Motors Ltd., who told them that he was recruiting, a manager in I. J. Dewhirst, the clothing firm, who told them that he was recruiting, and a manager in Trusthouse Forte plc, who told them that he was recruiting. They also heard of a request that had come in while they were sitting there from another hotel group in Liverpool, which was recruiting, and they had the opportunity to meet the chairman and the area manager of the Manpower Services Commission. If they cannot take the opportunity provided by those interviews, it is very sad and a pity.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us were surprised to be told in the Irish media that Tory Members interested in Northern Ireland had been "squared" in connection with a forthcoming initiative? Is she further aware that we are glad to know that the speculation in The Mail on Sunday is entirely unfounded?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He will recall that the Secretary of State for Scotland was so worried about that report that he published a statement, which my hon. Friend no doubt read. The position is as I described it earlier.

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister accept that since her intemperate remarks against Church leaders last Saturday there has been mounting criticism of the personal attack that they imply? Is she now seeking to change the constitution so that bishops whom she appointed cannot speak out, or will she change her mind and for once listen to them, as they have a moral and spiritual duty to put her Government back on a sounder course?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the previous question, I should have said the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had a little sense of humour, but I now discover that I was wrong. Clearly, spring has not yet arrived in Southwark.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 1 APRIL—Consideration of a timetable motion on the Transport Bill.
Motions relating to the Housing Benefits Amendment and on the Housing Benefits (Subsidy) Regulations.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the National Heritage (Scotland) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 2 APRIL — Progress in Committee on the Interception of Communications Bill.
Motions on the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations and on the Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Amendment Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 3 APRIL —Further progress on remaining stages of the Interception of Communications Bill.
Motion on the Road Traffic (Type Approval) (Northern Ireland) Regulations.
THURSDAY 4 APRIL —The House will meet at 9.30 am, take Questions until 10.30 am, and adjourn at 3.30 pm until Monday 15 April.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he has chosen Monday for the timetable motion on the latest monumental folly of the Secretary of State for Transport? Is he aware that on Tuesday people representing millions of bus users and workers will lobby Parliament? Could not the Government for once have had the decency to give those people a democratic opportunity to influence events before bringing down the guillotine on a Bill which has no friends among bus users, managers of enterprise or workers in the industry?
Why shall we debate the Interception of Communications Bill on two successive days? Given the importance and controversy of the measure, does not the Leader of the House think that it would be sensible to have a day or two in between the two days' consideration for proper reflection and consultation to enhance the debate that will take place?
On 14 March the right hon. Gentleman assured me that we could look forward to a foreign affairs debate in the near future. In view of the atrocious acts of the South African security forces during the past week, will he ensure that we have that debate directly after we return from the Easter Recess?
Finally, I understand that at 3.30 this afternoon the Government are publishing a White Paper on employment. It is the first time that such a document has been published in 40 years. Why have the Government not chosen to make a statement to the House on that White Paper? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it, as I do, to be a dereliction of duty to the public and to Parliament?

Mr. Biffen: Perhaps I may take the points made by the right hon. Gentleman in the sequence in which they were

delivered. I believe that Monday is a good day to debate the timetable motion on the Transport Bill. The Bill has been in Committee for well over 80 hours and has made only modest progress. There is a real requirement on the House of Commons, as a working body, to take the matter further. Of course, I am sorry that it does not coincide with the outside representations that will be made, but I know that they will still be seriously considered by those hon. Members who are considering the legislation.
Secondly, I believe that the House is entitled to take two successive days to deal with the Committee stage of the Interception of Communications Bill. It is an important matter and we should try to make progress on it. Of course there are disadvantages in taking days in succession —I do not deny that—but there will be a gap before Report stage when matters can be considered—

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The third day of the Committee stage.

Mr. Biffen: I hear what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) says from a sedentary position. Those matters can be considered through the usual channels.
As to a foreign affairs debate, I recognise the importance of the subject, which has been underlined by the recent tragic events in South Africa. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall try to have a debate as soon after the Easter recess as can be arranged.
Finally, the White Paper on employment that is published today is an important statement of Government policy, but it follows a debate in the House within the past few days when the matter was dealt with exhaustively — [AN HON. MEMBER: "That was the Budget."] Anyone would think that the Budget was a book-keeping exercise—

Mr. Roy Hattersley: It is.

Mr. Biffen: The Budget concerns economic management on such a scale that the Opposition believed it important to ask the shadow spokesman on employment to take part in the debate.
Notwithstanding his somewhat partisan interpretation of my statement of next week's business, I wish to conclude by wishing the Leader of the Opposition a very happy birthday.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Although I appreciate the world-shaking importance of some of the matters that my right hon. Friend has announced for next week, is he aware that many of us who have studied the American proposals for the strategic defence initiative and who have read the extraordinary speech by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the judgments arrived at by the Prime Minister, believe that it would be appropriate for the House to consider the strategic defence initiative before final decisions are made about it? Now that we have had an open invitation from the United States to take part —I hope that we will—should not Parliament have an opportunity to offer its judgment on the matter in the near future?

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says, and I give it due weight and significance, but I ask him to consider this in the light of the promised debate on foreign affairs.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The Leader of the House will recall that repeatedly in recent


years I have asked about the joint-venture, private steel-public steel Phoenix 2 programme, because one of its major components is the Tinsley park works in my constituency. Yet we learn today that that works will be closed. Does this not raise questions about the protracted length of the policy on joint venture programmes, which has undoubtedly cost Tinsley park investment and, therefore, modernisation; about this turn of events, which will enable the Treasury to swing costs onto the British Steel Corporation; about 1,100 jobs lost and the need for consultation between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment; and about the future of Sheffield and south Yorkshire, which have been devastated since 1979 as a result of policies such as the one that has been before the House for the past four years? Does the Leader of the House believe that those matters should be discussed by the House at the first opportunity after we return from the Easter recess?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. He has been a doughty fighter for his constituents' interests in this matter over a number of years. Clearly I have made no provision for the matter to be debated before the Easter recess, and I cannot hold out any hope of Government time thereafter. I shall take account of what the hon. Gentleman has said and will refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend scrap some of the tedious debates on orders next week and give us instead a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement, in view of its great importance to the textile industries and the unsatisfactory answers given from the Government Front Bench yesterday?

Mr. Biffen: I can understand those who wish to argue the virtues of a debate on the MFA. The orders that my hon. Friend is seeking to displace are of great significance to many hon. Members. I shall bear in mind the importance of a debate on the MFA.

Dr. David Owen: Judging from the Budget debate, many hon. Members on both sides of the House do not believe that the Government have a strategy for employment. Will the Leader of the House make this document available, as it is rather surprising not to have any statement from the Secretary of State? There is a queue outside waiting for the document to be released, and many in it are Conservative Members.

Mr. Biffen: I understand that the document has been released. I shall look into the matter.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the construction by the Soviet Union in Antarctica of no fewer than seven major camps, two of them with runways of 2 km and one with a runway of 3 km, and the conduct by the Russians of a major air shuttle from Minsk to Vostok in the Antarctic represents more than one would normally consider as peaceful geological survey? May we have a debate into this, which represents a possible serious military threat to the South Atlantic and the southern flank of NATO?

Mr. Biffen: This demonstrates one aspect of East-West relations that will feature in the debate on foreign affairs.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I ask the Leader of the House once more about the possibility of a debate on the report by the Commission for Racial Equality on

immigration procedures. In doing so, I remind the Leader of the House that it is likely that in May the European Court will be pronouncing on certain immigration cases, in all probability to the embarrassment of the Government. Would it not be as well for the right hon. Gentleman if we get the CRE report out of the way before the European Court pronounces?

Mr. Biffen: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has my interests so much at heart in making this request. I shall give further thought to it.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend seen press reports today to the effect that 90 per cent. of the 12,000 animals imported into this country die en route, and are brought over in conditions that are inhumane and disgraceful? Could we have an early debate or statement on this important matter?

Mr. Biffen: In the light of what my hon. Friend has said, I shall draw the matter to the attention of my relevant right hon. Friends, because I suspect that the matter touches on more than one Department.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Is the Leader of the House aware that the timetable motion on the Transport Bill on Monday will be looked on with horror by the transport authorities? This is a contentious measure, described by various Ministers as a leap in the dark or as an act of faith. We have already had a report from a Select Committee with a majority of Conservative Members containing strong objections to the Bill. Would it not be better to withdraw the Bill, rethink it and bring it back next session so that we can give it the scrutiny that it deserves?

Mr. Biffen: I may be giving a disappointing reply to the right hon. Gentleman, but he may have an oppportunity to make a speech on Monday putting those arguments and persuading the House to agree with him.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning a deputation of residents from the areas adjacent to Molesworth came to see my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) to express their anxiety about the disruption of their lives that is likely to take place at Easter through the actions of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? As my right hon. Friend will know, many hon. Members have expressed their concern at the activities of CND. Would it be possible for us to have a debate before Easter so that the House can express its displeasure at the way in which CND has disrupted the lives of residents?

Mr. Biffen: I sympathise with the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I must confess that all Government time is bespoken.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act is a matter of great importance to a number of severely disabled service men and ex-service men, as expressed in early-day motion 561? Although the matter was raised in the debate on the Easter recess, there was, understandably, no ministerial statement. Please may we have one?

[That this House calls for the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, which provides total immunity against any legal action for negligence which results in the death or disability of a serviceman carrying out his day to day duties in peacetime; recognises that servicemen


accept the risks in action, but believes that at all other times they should have the same rights as everyone else, including other public servants such as police and firemen; calls upon the Government to provide these basic rights for servicemen; and recommends that they should apply retrospectively, so that servicemen who are at present disabled through possible negligence are not excluded from such rights.]

Mr. Biffen: I shall refer to the Secretary of State for Defence the right hon. Member's point about the Easter recess debate and his question.

Mr. Peter Fry: Will my right hon. Friend find time before too long for a debate on road safety? The Select Committee on Transport recently produced a report which was received with considerable interest. It is time that the matter was discussed so that hon. Members on both sides may make their views known and the Government may come forward with their new thinking on this important topic.

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says and will draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. James Hamilton: It has been widely reported that Scottish Tory Back Benchers are meeting the Prime Minister today to protest about the revaluation and its effects on commercial and domestic consumers in Scotland. May we be assured that a statement on the subject will be made to the House before the Easter recess, and before the Scottish Tory party conference takes place, because hon. Members are entitled to know the facts before they are made known to that conference?

Mr. Biffen: I would not wish to choose between two such distinguished bodies. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the matter was debated at some length on the Consolidated Fund Bill. However, I shall draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the point that he makes.

Dr. Alan Glyn: My right hon. Friend will be aware of recent Select Committee leaks. Will he consider initiating a debate on, or conducting an inquiry into, the matter and particularly into leaks in connection with the Privileges Committee?

Mr. Biffen: The report of the Privileges Committee is now available in the Vote Office.

Mr. James Lamond: The Leader of the House has referred his hon. Friends who asked questions about peace and disarmament to the forthcoming debate on foreign affairs. Is he aware that he cannot hide behind that strategy for much longer? He has used it on me on many occasions, suggesting questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the debate on the defence White Paper as suitable vehicles by which to raise questions about disarmament. Will he for once allocate a day to the discussion, not of foreign affairs or the defence White Paper but of peace and disarmament, an issue which is of crucial importance to the whole nation?

Mr. Biffen: I understand those who argue that the topics concerned with disarmament stand in their own

right and merit debate in their own right. I have the task of trying to reconcile all the demands that are made with the time that is available. I have an obligation to point out that disarmament is a vital and integral part of the wider issue of foreign relationships.

Mr. Matthew Parris: As the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill in nearly five weeks has reached only clause 9 in considering a Bill with 100 clauses, is my right hon. Friend aware that the sooner a timely and generous timetable motion can be agreed, the better it will be for all concerned?

Mr. Biffen: I note my hon. Friend's remarks; I hope, therefore, that the business set down for Monday is acceptable, and perhaps he will be able to contribute to that debate.

Mr. David Winnick: As conflicting stories are circulating about the negotiations between the British and Irish Governments, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an urgent statement to be made? Is he aware that those such as myself, who hope that negotiations are taking place—one has the impression from Prime Minister's Question Time that the right hon. Gentleman knows rather more than what we were told by the right hon. Lady—feel that the House should be kept informed, in particular to avoid some of the rumours that are current?

Mr. Biffen: The subject of the Province is always redolent with rumours. I shall take note of what the hon. Gentleman says and draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to his remarks.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: As on Monday we shall, for the second time in a relatively short period, be debating a timetable motion, will my right hon. Friend tell us how he reacts to the suggestion which has often been made before — that one of the more efficient ways of conducting our business would be to introduce timetables on Second Reading?

Mr. Biffen: As we have a Select Committee on Procedure which is examining precisely that subject, I think that it would be courteous to await its report before passing public judgment.

Mr. Martin Flannery: As the Government's supreme achievement in education has been single-handedly to unite the teaching profession for the first time—something which many Labour Members have been trying to do for years—will they realise that, with that unity, there will be a long struggle, to the detriment of children's education—a struggle which has been forced upon the teachers by the Government's wretched policies? Against the background of this serious situation in education, can we have a full-scale debate on the education programme and the struggle that the teachers are waging for a living wage?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I cannot accept the premise on which he describes the present situation. I believe that a very fair offer has been made to the teaching profession. I shall of course refer the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend find time to allow the House to offer its advice to the Cabinet upon the proposal that the banks and the building societies should be able to carry out conveyancing for their customers and not only for themselves? Is he aware that many of my hon. Friends — I expect that many Opposition Members take the same view — find it difficult to understand how the conflicts of interest that are inherent in the proposal can possibly be resolved?

Mr. Biffen: I have no proposals before me as yet to provide Government time for such a debate, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Is the Leader of the House aware that his non-committal answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) will be found unsatisfactory by the south Yorkshire steelworkers, whose jobs have been disappearing at a fantastic rate ever since the Government came to power? Does he understand that the terrible news this morning about the Tinsley park works is a direct product of the Government's disastrous industrial policy, which has reduced demand for engineering steels by nearly 40 per cent? Will he think again about the need for a debate on the steel industry in Government time in the near future?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has made a highly contentious interpretation of what has happened at Tinsley park. I think that I gave a fair answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), and by that I stand.

Mr. Richard Holt: Before all football stadiums in the country are ripped up, before every woman has been raped, before every child has been battered and before all old people have been mugged, will my right hon. Friend care to find time in the not too distant future to enable the House to have a full debate on law and order, sentencing policy and all related matters?

Mr. Biffen: Just occasionally, powerful advocacy and even mild exaggeration win points in this place, but I do not think that I am encouraged by the terms in which my hon. Friend describes law and order in Britain. Of course, he has raised a matter of major concern in the House and among our constituents. However, whatever debates we have in this place must be related to some realistic reappraisal of what we can do to resolve the problems.

Mr. Richard Caborn: My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe, (Mr. Duffy) and for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) have referred to the closure of the Tinsley park works, where many of my constituents work. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answers to their questions were totally unsatisfactory? Does he realise that in the centre of Sheffield there are unemployment levels in excess of 50 per cent. and that the blow to the south Yorkshire steel industry of the closure of the Tinsley park works will not be taken lightly? The closure is extremely important to Sheffield, south Yorkshire and the steel industry as a whole. If there is any enlargement of the United Kingdom's manufacturing base, we shall sorely need the engineering steels which the Tinsley park works can produce. The works have better European and world records than any other comparable plant in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate hon. Members' desire to express succinctly their deep distress at what happens to industries in their constituencies, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said to the hon. Members for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), that I shall report hon. Members' anxieties to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or Trade and Industry. I thought that that was a reasonably forthcoming response.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Two or three months ago, my right hon. Friend said that when the BBC licence fee was announced the House would have a chance to debate it. Will my right hon. Friend now give the House that time, because many hon. Members, and many more people outside the House, believe that it is a matter for discussion in the House?

Mr. Biffen: I do not think that my hon. Friend will be disappointed, because the Opposition have prayed against the order increasing the licence fee, as my hon. Friend will see on today's Order Paper, and a debate will take place in due course.

Mr. Don Dixon: Why is the right hon. Gentleman bringing forward so early the guillotine motion on the Transport Bill? Is it because the Government are afraid that old-age pensioners will see threats to their concessionary bus passes, that rural areas will see threats to their weekend and evening services and that the transport industry will see the chaos that the Bill will create, or is it because the Government do not want to suffer the embarrassment of being unable to maintain a quorum in Committee, because they cannot get 50 per cent. of Conservative Committee members to attend the Committee's meetings? Is that the reason for the guillotine?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman's engaging eloquence is one reason that might have deterred me from bringing forward the timetable proposals. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we have not been precipitate in bringing this measure before the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be convinced of that when he hears the arguments on Monday.

Mr. Eric Forth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who have spent nearly 90 hours on the Transport Bill Standing Committee feel that the timetable motion is, if anything, overdue, bearing in mind that the Opposition spent 28 of the first 36 hours getting past clause 1 and that they have spoken for 80 per cent. of the total time? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the frustration of Government Back Benchers who want to make progress in examining the Bill properly?

Mr. Biffen: When I hear such battle veterans as my hon. Friend I realise what a rookie I am.

Mr. David Alton: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement soon about the threat of Merseyside county council's police committee not to provide a budget for the police authority in the forthcoming financial year and about the suggestion that commissioners may be sent into Liverpool? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the position of the chief constable in Merseyside is undermined by constant calls from Labour councillors on the county council for his early retirement or resignation?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has outlined a most serious situation. I shall, of course, refer his remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Since it has been suggested that the working party on football hooliganism, which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, has reported and since many Government Members would like to have the opportunity to point out that the latest outbreak of football hooliganism and violence is the fault not of the football clubs or the police, but of some magistrates who have been too timid in their sentencing, would it be possible to have a debate on this specific and important matter after the recess?

Mr. Biffen: I can offer no hope of Government time to discuss that matter in the period immediately after Easter. I suggest that my hon. Friend should pursue his chances with such other opportunities as there are.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Now that we have the employment White Paper, to which the Leader of the House referred some time ago, could the reason why no statement accompanies it be the fact that, on page 20, the Government are yet again blaming the low paid for the unemployment level? Does the Leader of the House accept the fact that, since the Conservative party took office in 1979, wages to school leavers relative to adult wages have fallen by 8 per cent. for boys and by 12 per cent. for girls, yet youth unemployment has trebled? Young people's wages do not cause their unemployment.

Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He knows that this topic was available for debate in the recent past. I am certain that it will be a continuing feature of our debates in the months ahead, not least because we shall be taking the Finance Bill through the House. I would not wish to endorse any of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Roger King: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the not-too-distant future to hold a debate on the whole structure of world trade so that we can compare fair trade with free trade and examine the idea advanced by certain Opposition Members that we should be looking towards some form of import controls — which would, of course, damage third world countries?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate that this topic is of great importance and interest to the House. Alas, the Adjournment debate on Monday on overseas trade does not really present my hon. Friend with the opportunity that he seeks, but there is no immediate opportunity for a debate on the matter. Nevertheless, I would remind my hon. Friend at least that I answered encouragingly the request for a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement.

Mr. Robert Litherland: On page 27 of "Employment: The Challenge for the Nation" we read:
Since 1979 the long-term decline in Britain's economic performance has been halted and reversed, under the guidance and stimulus of clear and resolute Government policies.
If this is not a misprint or a distortion of the truth, is it not worthy of a statement or a debate?

Mr. Biffen: No. It is just an example of extreme political moderation.

Mr. Tim Yeo: In view of the very important contribution that small businesses make to the creation of new jobs in this country, will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on this topic rather than leaving it to be covered as a peripheral adjunct within the context of other economic and industrial debates?

Mr. Biffen: Given again all the pressures on the time available to the House, I think my hon. Friend will find that there will be ample opportunity for this topic to be considered within the ambit of the Finance Bill, particularly if he is prepared to sit on the Committee.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can we have a statement from the Government on their decision to support the deletion of the principle of prior informed consent from the Food and Agriculture Organisation's draft code on the export of pesticides? Does the Leader of the House understand the significance of that deletion to Third-world countries? Can we have a full statement on this matter which, is causing a great deal of concern to many hon. Members?

Mr. Biffen: I will most certainly refer to the relevant Secretaries of State the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on house building and planning applications? In my constituency we face the strange difficulty that, although nobody wants additional housing, last night the county council passed an order which will result in the building of 4,500 unwanted houses in the last green belt area of my constituency.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has raised what I know is a very important point. However, I am sure he will agree that, in the context in which it was raised, it is very much a constituency matter. Therefore, I hope that he will feel disposed to try his luck with an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Max Madden: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) by saying that there will be widespread disappointment that the Leader of the House has failed to provide time in yet another week for a debate on the report of the Commission for Racial Equality. Can he give a definite commitment that the usual channels will be extremely well oiled so that a debate may take place immediately after our return from the Easter recess?

Mr. Biffen: No. I cannot give the specific commitment that the hon. Gentleman seeks. However, the matter will be further considered.

Mr. John Ryman: The Leader of the House has been asked several questions on law and order by several Conservative Members whose politics are probably to the right of Genghis Khan. One of the suggestions was that there should be a debate on magistrates' sentencing policies. Will the Leader of the House kindly confirm that it remains the policy of the Government not to interfere in any way with the sentencing policies of the courts?

Mr. Biffen: The relationship between the executive and the judiciary is well known and still stands.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), who had


asked for a statement on the employment White Paper, he introduced a strange kind of logic? His argument was that, because unemployment had been discussed during the debate on the Budget, the White Paper should not be defended from the Dispatch Box. Why, then, has there been a White Paper on education, notwithstanding the fact that we discussed education during the Budget debate? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has made a rod for his own back? He will be unable to defend this policy on future occasions. However, is not the truth of the matter that he is treating the unemployed with contempt? As a result of the policies of the Government, there are now 4 million unemployed in a nationwide Yosserland shouting, "Gissa job, gissa job." The right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers do not have the guts to defend and debate the matter as they should, in Parliament.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the use of the word "rod" implies a rigidity in these matters which is totally absent. Every topic is considered on its merits. If this matter is causing a deep sense of outrage, I have no doubt that it can be considered through the usual channels. However, it would also be perfectly reasonable for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to observe that, in view of the debate that has only recently been held on the topic, the course that he sought to follow was legitimate.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Since the Leader of the House does not consider that the employment White Paper is important enough for a statement to be made upon it today, may I advise him that the Select Committee on Employment has been advised that there is a great shortage of skills in industry. May I also remind the House that about three years ago the Government decided to abolish most of the industrial training boards? When the Select Committee on Employment has firmed up its report, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that a debate will be held on this important matter?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Select Committee, will know only too well that the first sequence in the chain of events is for the report to be published and considered by the Government and for the Government's comments to be made upon it. After that, we can consider the further point that the hon. Gentleman now raises.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for an urgent debate to be held next week on the situation facing rate-capped local authorities, so that we can discuss the very real anger that is felt in many of the poorest communities about the Government's denial of sufficient rate support grant and about their iniquitious Rates Act and the effect it is having upon local democracy? The Secretary of State for the Environment could then set out his proposals for dealing with the serious social problems that are to be found in many of the rate-capped authorities, which have led them to take action to defend services and jobs.

Mr. Biffen: I can make no offer whatsoever of Government time for a debate of the character the hon. Gentleman suggests. He may have to work his powers of persuasion upon some of his colleagues for Opposition time to be provided.

Mr. James Hill: It is not for me to inconvenience my right hon. Friend in any way, but does he realise the pressures that are building up for a debate on the strategic defence initiative? He may have noted the early-day motion that I put down yesterday drawing his notice and that of the Government to the fact that there was a 60-day warning from Secretary of State Weinberger on whether or not the European nations were going to participate in the research programme.
[That this House welcomes the United States' formal invitation made in Luxembourg on 26th March to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation powers to participate in Strategic Defence Initiative research; fully accepts that the 60-day limit set for response reflects the urgency with which so vast a co-ordinated multi-national enterprise must be promoted; and welcomes the Secretary of State for Defence's understanding of the need for a tight schedule.] Is it not absolutely essential for a debate to take place at this time?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the gentle and constructive pressures that my hon. Friend seeks to apply, but I have to refer him to the reply I gave earlier this afternoon to his hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). Of course I realise the importance of this topic, but it has to be considered with all the other claims on time in any debate that is held on our overseas relations.

Mr. Tony Banks: I note that the Leader of the House shares the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the appalling standard of the accommodation and facilities that are available to hon. Members. Will he arrange for a debate to take place at an early date on the second report of the Services Committee, so that a sensible decision can be reached?

Mr. Biffen: That matter is under consideration, but I cannot give an answer this afternoon.

Mr. Kinnock: At the beginning of business questions I asked the Leader of the House why there has not been a statement today on the employment White Paper. During the course of business questions, several of my hon. Friends raised the same matter. I regret that none of the answers of the Leader of the House has been in any way satisfactory, especially in view of the importance of the issue and the fact that the House will rise next week for the Easter recess. Can we therefore be given an absolute undertaking that early next week there will be a full statement on the White Paper, following the custom on the White Paper on education this very week, so that the Secretary of State can be properly cross-questioned and a long delay does not take place between the publication of the White Paper and its consideration by the House?

Mr. Biffen: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. I have not sought in any sense to minimise the importance that I attach to the feelings that exist on this topic. I said in response to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that, given the level of concern, the matter could be subject to further discussion through the usual channels. I am happy to confirm that.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will agree that we have had an unusual and bizarre Question Time today. We reached question 29 on Home Office questions; I think that you have established the word "lousy" as an acceptable


parliamentary term; two English Members asked uncertain questions about Wales; a Welsh Member read a question about an area which we, including yourself, could not identify; the Prime Minister said that the Secretary of State for Scotland had issued a statement about Northern Ireland; and we have received a White Paper on employment which many of us are surprised to find bears a bright blue cover.
Has there been a takeover of the Stationery Office by Conservative central office, or is this an early warning that Saatchi and Saatchi will become the privatised holder of the Stationery Office? There is great bewilderment that the Secretary of State for Employment has not seen fit to come to the House and tell us about its content. I am confident that it will be of little help and still less comfort to the unemployed, but to have that miserable document in bright blue is an insult to the 4 million unemployed in Britain. I think that all hon. Members would prefer a White Paper to have the conventional white cover.

Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not perfectly understandable why no statement has been made? The Government's record on unemployment is so disgraceful that no Minister would wish to try to justify it by appearing at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Speaker: Neither hon. Member will wish me to comment on the colour of a White Paper or anything of that kind.
If hon. Members are unable to be present at Question Time it is a courtesy to tell the Chair, so that they are not called. We did reach question 29.

Mr. Bruinvels: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Early-day motion 556—"Telegraphs"—in the name of the Leader of the Opposition quite properly contains a request that the regulations applying to the increase in television licence fees should be annulled. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has the right to bring forward such legislation after his announcement yesterday, but in view of the fact that so many hon. Members are against the licence fee being increased and, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has confirmed, there is to be a debate on that matter, may we have a debate before that fee is increased?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that I do not arrange the business of the House. He might have put that question to the Leader of the House when I called him.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether this matter falls within your general purview, but we are now seeing the habit developing of coloured covers on documents that we commonly know as White Papers. There is already something which is familiarly known as the Blue Book, and has been for many years. Will you consider, and perhaps make a recommendation on, the general policy that seems to be developing of giving different coloured covers, in view of the fact that, within common parlance in this democracy, as well as in Parliament, we attach particular importance and different status to documents called Green Papers, White Papers, Blue Books, Red Books and so on and it would be no help to public understanding to change the colour scheme at this stage?

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says. I share that view. We do have traditional colours, but it is not a matter for me if the Government issue a White Paper and change the colour of its cover. The right hon. Gentleman should take that up with those concerned.

Adjournment Debate

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a short statement about the Adjournment debate on Thursday 4 April.
I remind hon. Members that, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 4 April, up to nine Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result will be made known as soon as possible thereafter.

BILL PRESENTED

SURROGACY ARRANGEMENTS

Mr. Norman Fowler, supported by Mr. Secretary Brittan, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Kenneth Clarke and Mr. John Patten presented a Bill to regulate certain activities in connection with arrangements made with a view to women carrying children as surrogate mothers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 116.].

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Not amended in the Committee and as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 8

WASTE REGULATION AND DISPOSAL FUNCTIONS

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 4, line 29, at beginning insert—
'This section and section 9 below shall not come into effect until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report giving details of the arrangements for waste disposal which will obtain in Greater London and the metropolitan counties at the date on which those sections come into effect and those which are expected to obtain for the following six months.'.
As is often the case, the words on the Amendment Paper do not convey clearly either the meaning or importance of the amendment and the subject under discussion. We are talking about arrangements for waste disposal and regulation following the Government's proposal to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.
It has been clear since the Bill was published that the Government have no definite proposals or schemes worked out for that crucial area of policy in Britain's major conurbations and the City. As we have all agreed, the regulation and disposal of waste does not appear at first sight to many people outside the House to be of particular importance.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Or inside.

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I accept that too. The fact remains that it is a crucial service for the well-being of Britain's capital city and metropolitan counties. Such a policy and services have major implications for health and safety and other such aspects.
When the matter was first raised in Committee, it was clear that the Government did not know what would happen following the abolition of the authorities. Subsequently, I wrote to the Minister for Local Government with a series of questions which we hoped would be answered before the conclusion of the Committee stage. Those hopes were dashed, as had been our hopes on many other questions to Ministers during the Committee stage. Clearly, holes and weaknesses remain in the legislative proposals.
On 7 March 1985, in Committee, I returned to the issue and in reply the Minister for Local Government said:
I shall hold meetings with the London borough leaders who are talking to us before Report, at which time I hope and expect to report to the House on the proposals"—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 7 March 1985, c. 1970.]
We have not yet had any report, and we have had no clarification of the muddle generated as a result of the Government's policies. I very much hope that we shall

finally learn from the Government what their intentions are, and what detailed, worked-out, properly considered proposals they have to put to the House in that regard.
We are talking about a system which operates on the basis of a strategic service, and which operates across the metropolitan counties and the GLC. Of course, organisation on this sort of scale has many important advantages, such as the ability to attract expert teams, to promote technological advance, to implement recycling initiatives, to plan proposals for the long term and the ability to monitor and deal with pollution across small administrative boundaries. In addition, there are the economics of scale. Virtually all those important aspects of the present arrangements are placed in jeopardy by proposals to abolish those seven democratically elected authorities. Devolution to district councils working voluntarily together will be fraught with problems. Indeed, that was pointed out in the report commissioned by the metropolitan councils, and prepared by Coopers and Lybrand.
Waste disposal leads to an emotional and emotive response from communities. I refer not only to well-known environmental issues, but to the physical location of facilities, transport arrangements and so on. Many boroughs and districts are simply unable to resolve such difficulties within their boundaries. As a result, we believe that costs to the ratepayer will rise and that possible technological innovation will be stifled. Moreover, environmental conditions are likely to be inferior, and provision for the control, for example, of hazardous waste may be jeopardised.
So far nothing that has been said by the Minister for Local Government, by the Secretary of State for the Environment or by any other Minister with responsibilities in this area has convinced us that the Government have any clear and coherent solution to offer following abolition of the councils. To judge from the Minister's indication across the Dispatch Box a few moments ago, I understand that he is now in a position to answer those questions.

Mr. Tony Banks: About time, too.

Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Minister's failure to respond cannot be for want of questions being put to him or for want of opportunities in which to answer.
We have no confidence in the proposals for joint arrangements. As I have said, they are likely to be less effective and less efficient, to cost more than existing arrangements and be likely to deal less satisfactorily with environmental problems and associated difficulties.
I hope—although I do not expect—that the Minister can provide us with some convincing answers. It is not only us but the boroughs, districts and millions of people who will be affected, to whom those answers are long overdue.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Kenneth Baker): Before replying to the speech of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I should like to comment on a point raised twice in the House yesterday by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) concerning the delivery of letters in relation to the new financial controls that were agreed by the House yesterday.
In order to avoid accusations of legislation by press release, we went to great pains last Thursday to ensure that


all concerned, and particularly the abolition authorities, were informed of the new controls before they came into effect at midnight. I shall outline the sequence of events. The regional offices have confirmed delivery of the letter, which enclosed a copy of the amendments to the Local Government Bill, and the 3.30 pm press release reporting my written answer, by 3.30 pm at the latest.
As far as the GLC and ILEA are concerned, we have established the following. The Department's messenger has confirmed that he took letters with pink "Priority" labels to Mr. Stonefrost of the GLC and Mr. Stubbs of ILEA, leaving Marsham street at 3.40 pm. He handed the letters to a "young cheerful man with brown hair" in the GLC basement post room—the normal delivery point—at about 4 pm. He then delivered post to Elizabeth house and was logged back into Marsham street at 5 pm. Mr. Stubbs' secretary confirmed by telephone this morning that she has the ILEA letter booked in as having been received on Thursday. Members of the press were called to county hall—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does this have anything to do with the amendment?

Mr. Baker: Tangentially, yes, Mr. Speaker, in that yesterday I was asked twice about this issue. I suppose that I could have asked to make a statement, but I thought that it would probably be more convenient to clarify the matter in the context of this debate. I do not seek to abuse the procedures of the House—indeed, I am always anxious to help the House in its deliberations—but I believe that when I was asked about this matter yesterday the hon. Member for Newham, North-West was making a frivolous complaint. However, I set in hand inquiries — [Interruption.] A question will be answered setting everything out. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West should have known that the GLC—which, like us, gets leaked documents—held a press conference an hour before my press release, and implied that it would have people working all night to try to subvert our intentions.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Baker: As we wish to make progress on the amendment, I fear that I would be out of order if I gave way—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Baker: —but I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should get on with the debate on the amendment. However, as the Minister made a mini-statement, I shall allow the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to intervene.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Minister. I shall not detain the House for long, as we wish to debate the amendment.
My first point is that I do not make frivolous interventions on such serious matters. Secondly, I am satisfied that the letter was delivered to county hall on Thursday. I am equally satisfied that the director-general's office did not receive it until 9.20 am on Friday. One reason for that was that there was no one in the director-general's office when the letter was delivered, at 5 o'clock, or thereabouts, on the previous Thursday.
The Minister said that the letter was delivered to the director-general's office. It was not. That cheerful young

man with brown hair is no doubt an admirable member of the GLC staff, but I should have thought that for such an important communication some other way could have been found of drawing it to the immediate attention of the chief executive of the GLC. Although I accept what the Minister said, he has not exonerated himself—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should now move on to the amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I shall observe your request, Mr. Speaker, and not make the comments that I was tempted to make about the inefficiency of the GLC post room.
It may help the House if I intervene at this early stage in the debate. I hope that what I have to say will convince the House that the report called for in the amendment is unnecessary and that the amendment should therefore be rejected.
As the House knows, the Government's intention, as reflected in the Bill, is to secure the transfer of waste disposal and regulation functions to the borough and district councils. To facilitate that transfer, successor authorities were asked to submit by the end of last month statements of the arrangements which they proposed for carrying out these functions, and in particular arrangements for co-ordinating action with one another, where appropriate.
I am pleased to note that proposals have been, or are due shortly to be, received from 20 London boroughs, and that, thanks to the co-operation between those authorities, they embody an outline plan for carrying out these functions over the whole of London.
4.30 pm
They envisage the formation of seven groupings of authorities for disposal and other purposes, with arrangements for co-ordinating certain regulatory and other non-operational functions, and the formation of a special unit to deal with hazardous wastes. I met the leaders of these 20 boroughs last week and was very encouraged by their positive and constructive approach to developing proposals for this service in London.
Other authorities in London have not so far seen fit to submit proposals or to take part in the joint discussions which have taken place between authorities. I now hope, however, that they will take a more realistic view of the situation. The Government believe that the functions can be successfully carried out on the basis of the proposals submitted. It is accordingly very much in the interest of the remaining authorities to make up for lost time and participate in the joint planning and discussions now necessary to finalise the arrangements.
No comprehensive proposals have yet been submitted for the metropolitan counties, although six districts have submitted individual statements of what they have in mind. In most of the counties the problems are less complex than in London, and the task of making the necessary arrangements is correspondingly simpler. It is none the less important that planning for the takeover of the new functions should proceed without further delay. To assist this process I am today issuing a guidance document which advises successor authorities further on the types of practical arrangement which may be appropriate, drawing on the experience in London. I am placing copies in the Library later this evening.
In all counties we shall be looking for arrangements which ensure a smooth transition, make optimum use of


existing assets, and relate satisfactorily to the pattern of needs in the areas covered. We will also want authorities to exploit to the full the opportunities for the use of the private sector, including joint public and private financing and management of facilities such as landfill sites and transfer stations.
Since the Committee stage, I have also met representatives of the private sector, and I was immensely encouraged by the particularly positive way in which they are looking at the transfer of functions and exploring ways in which they can help even further. The private sector is very important in this context. It handles about 75 to 80 per cent. of the work done in waste disposal.
The extent to which authorities will need to co-ordinate for operational purposes will depend on the extent to which they are dependent on the same facilities or contracts for treatment or disposal of waste either now or in the immediate future. In the case of regulatory and other non-operational functions, we shall look for some countywide co-ordination to ensure reasonable consistency in the application of standards for licensing waste disposal sites and effectiveness in the enforcement of the current controls. We also regard it as essential that there should be close co-ordination of control over, and services to deal with, hazardous wastes.
I am highly conscious of the importance of maintaining public confidence in the standards of hazardous waste disposal and control. I assure the House that the Government take their responsibilities in this area very seriously indeed. My right hon. Friend made the same point earlier this week in the Government's response to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's report on hazardous waste disposal.
We therefore believe that proper arrangements for successor authorities to obtain specialist advice on hazardous waste and on its control must obtain from 1 April next year. These activities need to be fully coordinated between authorities and existing centres of specialist staff, facilities and equipment. Especially, computer-based records should be kept intact as far as possible. We take the view that it would make sense to employ the necessary staff in a common unit, probably based in one authority, but making its services available to the whole of London on a repayment basis.
The Government now look to successor authorities to draw up and submit to the Department as soon as possible more detailed proposals which can form the basis for decisions on staffing and for the necessary orders for transfer of assets and liabilities. It will be necessary for proposals to identify specifically to whom the assets and liabilities are to be transferred, and on what conditions. The best arrangements in general will be for transfer to a single authority, with that authority making separate agreements with other authorities involved, but there may be cases where authorities should be parties to contracts jointly and severally. In the cases that I have discussed with London authorities, both of those are possible arrangements.
The Government will not hesitate to use, if need be, the reserve powers under the Bill to secure—

Dr. Cunningham: On the specific question of all the assets going to one authority, is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that all the refuse carts in the GLC area should go to one authority?

Mr. Baker: That is not my proposal. As the hon. Gentleman will see, there is a proposal for seven groupings in London. In the meeting that I had with the boroughs last week—

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Baker: May I just explain to the hon. Gentleman? I shall give way in a moment.
There are various possible arrangements. On the assets — which are the transfer depots and the trucks and lorries that will be used—the groupings can decide to handle these collectively as a joint committee, if they so wish. Some have expressed a desire to do that. There is even the possibility — which I shall come to in a moment—of a joint board, which is the upper final solution, as it were. Then there is a joint committee, there are voluntary arrangements, and there are arrangements under which the contracts are continued on a joint and several basis.
The boroughs in London to which I have talked are well advanced in their plans for this. The principle is that the assets, such as incinerators and transfer depots, will be transferred to the boroughs in which they are situated, and the arrangements which the boroughs will come to, in which they will determine how many trucks they will use, can be vested either in one borough or in a group of boroughs collectively, jointly and severally.
The point that I am making all the time is that it is essentially for the boroughs and districts outside the London district councils to talk together and decide which is the best way forward.
What has happened so far is that the Conservative boroughs in London have put their plans on the table and discussed with us fully. The Conservative district councils outside London have done that. The Labour district councils are still taking the line of not wishing to talk to the Government at all. I very much hope that that attitude will change very quickly, because we know informally that many of the district and borough councils are making their own plans and talking to each other on this.

Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman keeps using phrases like "we envisage", and "we have an outline plan". He said a few moments ago, "The point that I am making". The point that he is making over and over again is that there are still no clear, definite, agreed proposals in existence. That is what is very clearly coming out of what he is saying.

Mr. Baker: As I have made clear, as regards London the proposals are quite specific. There are seven groupings of boroughs—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Baker: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. The groupings are set out in the paper on advice and guidance. They are: group 1: Kingston, Merton, Sutton, Croydon and Bromley; group 2: Bexley, Lewisham, Greenwich and Southwark; group 3: Richmond, Hounslow, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hillingdon, Ealing, Harrow and Brent; group 4: Barnet, Camden, Enfield, Haringey, Islington, Hackney and Waltham Forest; group 5: Redbridge, Havering, Newham and Barking; group 6: Westminster, City of London and Tower Hamlets; and group 7: Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth and Lambeth.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman listen to what I am saying? These are the proposals that have derived from our consultations with 20 boroughs—the Conservative boroughs and also the Liberal-controlled borough of Richmond. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Labour boroughs are still not talking to us—or to anybody, as far as I know, including himself. These are the groupings which both ourselves and the London boroughs are convinced will work on an operational basis and with regard to the contacts and operations that go on in waste disposal. I hope that the guidance notes published today, and the proposals, will encourage those London boroughs which have not yet started to talk to begin talks among themselves and with us.

Mr. Tony Banks: May we see the guidance notes, because they are important to the debate? It would be helpful if we could see them within the next 10 minutes. The seven groupings obviously have not been discussed with the Labour-controlled boroughs. Was the proposal made by civil servants, or by the 20 Conservative-controlled boroughs?

Mr. Baker: A series of discussions have taken place between my Department's waste disposal experts and members of the hazardous waste unit and the London boroughs. The pattern for waste disposal in London has been examined at a series of meetings. We know a great deal about waste disposal in London, as do the London boroughs, because their trucks convey most of the waste to the transfer depots.
I hope that discussions and reasonableness will prevail and that voluntary arrangements will be worked out. If that does not happen, I can use reserve powers to establish joint boards either for all the conurbations or for parts of the conurbations. I shall not hesitate to use those reserve powers if necessary to ensure satisfactory arrangements for waste disposal when the Bill takes effect.
I am firmly of the view that no occasion has yet been shown for the exercise of those powers. It should not be necessary to use them if authorities now prepare and submit plans for carrying out their new functions. Many Labour districts outside London are talking, and planning their own waste disposal arrangements. I believe that some Labour-controlled London boroughs are doing the same. It would be better if discussions were more frank and open and if the boroughs talk to neighbouring boroughs in the way that I have suggested.

Mr. John Cartwright: The Minister's statement was a disappointment. Many of us expected a clear, decisive statement on what the Government intend to do about waste disposal. If anything, we are even more muddled now.
The proposals have been discussed with 20 London boroughs, but 12 of the boroughs are not involved in the discussions. All that we have from the Minister is the promise of a guidance document, and, once again, an appeal for talks. He has been appealing to the boroughs to talk on this and other issues for a long time. I think that there is a grave risk that the boroughs will not talk, at least until the Bill is on the statute book. That means that more time will be wasted.
The proposals for the metropolitan counties are even less clear. No overall proposal has been submitted in respect of any of the metropolitan counties.
What happens if the co-operation of the boroughs which are not involved is not forthcoming? The Minister proposes seven groupings, but setting up voluntary groups of London boroughs for providing a variety of services has not been a total success in the past.
The grouping proposed for south-east London is much the same as that which was set up to deal with computer services for south-east London. That eventually broke down as a result of internal pressure from a number of the boroughs. At one time a number of consortia administered trading standards across Greater London, but that eventually broke down as a result of pressure from the boroughs.
The Minister's statement is not convincing and leaves us in doubt. The Minister says, "Don't worry. Trust me. I have powers, and a variety of opportunities are available. If the voluntary arrangements do not work we can use the concept of the lead borough or joint board." The proposals are vague. At what point does the Minister intend to use his reserve powers? When shall we have a clear statement about this important service?
4.45 pm
All the expert evidence and evidence from private waste disposal interests leads us to believe that waste disposal must be an overall responsibility conducted on a county-wide basis. It is far too important a service to be left to the type of cobbled-up arrangements which the Minister is still trailing before the House. On this, as on so many other topics, the Minister is saying, "Don't worry. It will be all right on the night." That is not an appropriate approach to a service as important as waste disposal.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I should not have been amazed at the Minister's statement, but I was. He heralded it as if he was about to reveal new schemes, plans, discussions and solutions which would allay all our anxieties and demonstrate that the waste disposal functions now carried out by the GLC and the six metropolitan counties can be carried out adequately by the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts. However, the Minister did not do that.
The statement proved that what we said throughout the proceedings in Committee and what everyone else has been saying is true. The districts and the London boroughs will not be able adequately to take over and run waste disposal functions effectively and efficiently. The fact that the Minister has taken reserve powers shows that the Government do not believe that the districts and boroughs will be able easily to provide an adequate service.
The statement, the proposals and the arrangements in the Bill prove that the function should not be handed to the districts, but that it should be run at a conurbation-wide level. The Minister shakes his head, but the function cannot be operated at district and borough level.
The Minister glibly talks about submissions from the metropolitan areas and claims that it is simple for the districts to get together. Sefton metropolitan district has made a submission which I have read. Its scheme is to start tipping on sites above the level already agreed for tipping by two planning bodies — the Sefton and Merseyside planning authorities. On two of the sites—Sefton and Fell lane—tipping will take place on top of landscaping. Waste mountains will be created instead of holes being filled. No holes are left in Sefton. The arrangements will be difficult in Merseyside because St. Helens has all the


holes and the other districts have all the waste. If I lived in Labour-controlled St. Helens, I should ensure that Sefton, one of the lowest rated authorities in the country, paid handsomely to tip refuse in my area. I would not particularly want Southport's refuse in St. Helens.
One private refuse disposal tip in the Wirral has not functioned properly since it was opened. I am sure that if I were in the Conservative-controlled Wirral, I would not want Conservative-controlled Sefton's refuse coming into my area. There is no agreement on Merseyside. Ron Watson, the leader of Sefton council, has not thrashed it out with Derek Hatton. They are not likely to, even when the Bill is on the statute book, if it gets there.
The whole thing is a hotch-potch. Since Merseyside county council took over waste disposal after local government reorganisation, there has been tremendous pioneering. There has been constructive and creative use of waste; public open spaces have been created; refuse has been tipped in underground caves in other districts, which would not have happened previously; a programme has been set up to manufacture waste into fuel pellets; and civic amenity sites have been established throughout the area. The same has happened in many other metropolitan areas. All that could go by the board when the metropolitan counties are abolished.
As the Minister said, the private sector works in partnership with Merseyside county council, the other metropolitan authorities and the GLC. If the private sector is anything to go by, it is not keen on the abolition of the metropolitan counties or on the Government's proposals for waste disposal. The National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors has said:
The effectiveness of voluntary joint boards as an alternative regulatory authority for the disposal of waste has not been historically successful, as was demonstrated prior to the 1974 reorganisation.
I could give many other quotes. The Confederation of British Industry said:
We have considered very carefully the Government's proposals that responsibility for waste regulation and disposal should be transferred to individual Districts and Borough Councils. The overwhelming majority of members consulted were of the view that voluntary co-operation is unlikely to work, and that statutory joint arrangements should be made from the outset.
The lie to the Government's arguments in favour of their abolition proposals is given when we consider waste disposal. Their proposals prove that they are not getting rid of one tier of local government and giving power to a lower tier. They are getting rid of a tier of democratically elected local government and setting up another tier, which is not democratically accountable, to run services such as waste disposal.
In the not-too-distant future I hope to see in Merseyside and elsewhere district heating schemes, with waste incineration providing some of the heat, because we shall not get the Marshall plan grand-scale scheme. That can be planned only on a conurbation basis. This legislation is sacrificing future experiments of that kind. I hope the Government will accept the amendment.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: We have heard once again from the Minister the hollow answers that we received in Committee. We have made no progress. The substantive matters of concern that were raised about waste disposal, particularly in the metropolitan counties, have been answered in the same way by the Minister. He has heard from a few of the district councils, but he does

not know what the rest are doing. He hopes that something is being organised, but he knows little or nothing about it. He says that, if necessary, he will rely on voluntary cooperation.
In my hand I have an exchange of correspondence, which was published yesterday, between the chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Secretary of State for the Environment about waste disposal within the metropolitan counties and the GLC area. Sir Richard Southwood is obviously as worried as we are about the Government's seeming indifference to the future of waste disposal. Sir Richard tells us that he is concerned, in particular, about the comparison with the Welsh authorities — a topic raised on several occasions in Committee. The Welsh authorities failed abysmally to match the standards operating in the rest of the country. Those points were put to the Minister in Committee and they were put by Sir Richard to the Secretary of State in the exchange of correspondence. Yet, important though they are, there has been no response to them.
Sir Richard pointed out the need to build up professional expertise on waste disposal. He said that the expertise is in relatively short supply and needs husbanding, which the metropolitan counties have done successfully in the past. He said that this is unlikely to happen if waste disposal becomes the responsibility of districts. Yet, once again, the Secretary of State responded with deafening silence and indifference.
Sir Richard pointed to the link between waste disposal, minerals planning and land reclamation—all issues that were raised in Committee and to which there were no answers. Once again this afternoon the Minister refuses to make any comment on those important matters, and in his response to Sir Richard the Secretary of State failed to deal with them.
I could go on at considerable length, because these are important and detailed points, but I appreciate the ridiculous pressure on time today. I must draw the attention of the House to a press release about a speech made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday at a conference in London on waste disposal. He said that in some areas waste disposal is unsatisfactory, that there are many problems and that in some parts of the country waste disposal authorities have taken considerable steps towards a regional approach.
One Minister from the Department of the Environment is saying that we need larger authorities and a regional structure to organise waste disposal. That is the sensible way to do things. If he were sitting behind the Minister for Local Government now, he would be stabbing him in the back. Fortunately for the Minister, he is not here today to give him that kind of treatment.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Where is he?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend asks where he is. Clearly he has been exiled to a waste disposal conference elsewhere because of his damaging comments.
There is schizophrenia within the Department of the Environment. One Minister tells us that we need a regional approach, while another tells us that the best approach is that provided by districts and by the London boroughs. Surely the House is entitled to draw the conclusion that one Minister or the other does not know what he is talking about and, more generally, that the Department has no clear view on the problem of waste disposal.
We have no adequate answers to the waste disposal problem in my area, which has no landfill sites. Perhaps the tip in Stretford, which should have been consigned to history, will be reopened to become a major site for the disposal of waste. That would lead to massive resistance from the residents and cause anxiety and heartache to those who would suffer the consequences.
It is lack of knowledge about what will happen in the future that concerned the Opposition in Committee and concerns us again today. We have not yet received adequate answers and we are unlikely to receive them when the Minister replies to the debate. For those reasons, it is important that the amendment is accepted. Even though the amendment would provide minimum safeguards, it would mean that the Minister would have to take seriously the important problems that will affect communities.

5 pm

Mr. Tony Banks: Despite what the Minister has said, nothing has been finally determined. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree to the amendment. The debate underlines the fact that this is the most ill-thought-out part of the Bill — and that is saying something, given the nature of the Bill as a whole. We should have had this debate in Committee.
The Minister has put forward a series of thoughts about proposals, and that is quite inappropriate on Report. We want to know what the proposed seven groupings are, so that we can determine whether they make any sense geographically. I know that the Labour boroughs have not been involved in any consultation, so neither the Minister nor I know to what extent they would be prepared to go along with their Tory counterparts on any proposals.
Voluntary agreements will not work, as has been shown by historical precedent. Every significant independent study into waste disposal in London has come out against the sort of proposals now being made. Have any of the Tory boroughs argued that current arrangements should continue for two or three years after abolition? In that way, the boroughs could try to grapple with the problems that the Minister is about to give them.
The Minister mentioned lead boroughs and hazardous waste disposal. I think that he accepts that hazardous waste will be a Londonwide strategic matter. What will happen about site licensing, waste planning and research and development? All those matters have been identified as Londonwide strategic problems. Will the lead borough proposals be applied in those areas also?
Has the Minister yet been able to identify any savings? It was generally conceded in Committee that there would not be any savings of either staff or money. During the period of discussion between publication of the Bill and today, the Government have suggested 11 different forms of co-operation that they would be prepared to accept. Is the Minister prepared to accept a whole series of different proposals — for example, statutory groupings existing alongside voluntary groupings or individual boroughs going it alone if they so wish? We do not believe that an effective voluntary arrangement can be agreed by April 1986. Is the Minister thinking about what will happen after 1 April 1986 if he cannot achieve some voluntary agreement?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to add to the list of questions that we hope the Minister will answer. It is obvious that his proposals are only barely off the drawing board, yet we were led to expect a Government announcement of a plan.
When the Minister produced the analysis of responses to "Streamlining the Cities", he said that 15 of the London boroughs were in favour of the proposal that waste disposal and regulation should be transferred to the London boroughs and metropolitan districts. Was that a dishonest statement? If it was not, have those boroughs now changed their minds? It is clear that they do not now hold the view that they either can or are willing to cope with his proposals.
The Minister refuses to accept that there can be Londonwide arrangements. He has put forward a half idea for another form of grouping. This time it is not a joint board or a collection of joint committees but a wider grouping — just the sort of thing that we thought the Government did not want. The Minister should come clean about this.
The Minister told Tory leaders and my colleague Mr. David Williams, the leader of Richmond council, that he was unwilling to set up a joint board because it would be politically unacceptable. The leader of Croydon, who is also chairman of the LBA, wanted a joint committee as he thought joint boards would be politically dangerous for the Conservative party and would cause dissatisfaction among the Tory boroughs. That is what the Minister was told at the meeting that he hastily convened last week.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Hastily?

Mr. Hughes: Yes. It is ludicrous that proposals about such substantive and important matters should be decided on political considerations and not on objective local service considerations.
What will be the cost in penalties of breaking the three, four, five and 10-year GLC contracts? Surely it is better that the present arrangements should continue. The Minister should admit that he was wrong to say that the boroughs could take control. He should return to the current arrangements, which are working well and of which the GLC and the metropolitan counties can justifiably be proud.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked me to bring forward a Government plan. He is a member of a party with a great tradition of being against authority and centralisation, yet he urges the Government to lay upon boroughs and districts the exact details of how they should carry out certain functions. Such a plan would require a great deal more detail than rate capping. It sits ill with what I believe to be the hon. Gentleman's basic instincts—which are localist and a belief in placing more responsibility with local authorities — for him to suggest such a plan. I think that, on reflection, he would not wish to stand by the idea of Government telling districts and boroughs exactly how to handle waste disposal.
It is true that the leader of the Liberal council in Richmond came to see me with Conservative borough leaders. He said that that did not mean that he supported the Bill, but that he thought it sensible and wise to discuss the future. I applaud him for that. I only wish other


borough leaders would accept the fact that this Bill will reach the statute book within the next two or three months —as last night's vote demonstrated to those who have any doubts that the Government are determined to take the Bill through. Therefore, it would be sensible for those who will have functions and responsibilities devolved upon them on 1 April 1986 to get together and plan sensibly. That is what I am asking the boroughs and districts to do.
There is the fallback position of a joint board—either a collective board or individual boards. However, joint boards mean precepts and GREA expenditure would have to be allocated to them. When many of the boroughs and districts realise that, I am sure that they will prefer to operate with a joint committee. I believe that that will work effectively.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) asked me about some of the other functions. In the case of regulatory and other non-operational functions, we shall look for some countywide co-ordination to ensure reasonable consistency in the application of standards for licensing waste disposal sites and effectiveness in the enforcement of current controls.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether statutory groupings could work alongside voluntary groupings. If that position emerges in London, and if some areas want statutory groupings — for example, joint boards — I shall use the powers under clause 9. That does not mean that there will have to be a joint board for each area of London.
The hon. Gentleman's question about the boroughs was raised at the meeting that I had with them at which one or two said that they would be prepared to operate alone. Before agreeing to that, I must consider the impact that that would have on neighbouring boroughs as we have to take into account the availability of landfill sites and incinerators.
Those who have influence in the councils that are to be abolished, such as the hon. Member for Newham, NorthWest—the chairman-elect of the GLC—should be aware that I hope that there will be co-operation and discussion. Many discussions are already taking place informally and many Labour-controlled councils are planning for the inevitable—the end of the metropolitan councils and the GLC.

Dr. Cunningham: With the leave of the House. This all too brief debate has exposed yet again the fact that the Government have no definite proposals to put to the House. The Minister's opening speech was as abstract and convoluted as the design on his tie. He told us nothing that we were not told weeks ago in Committee. He had nothing new to tell us today, and it is clear that there are no new agreements on arrangements for the metropolitan counties or for London.
The Minister said that the Bill will reach the statute book. All the signs are that, if it does, it will still have no firm and properly worked out proposals for waste disposal in major conurbations and London. As he mentioned groupings, I can tell him that one of those which he mentioned — that which includes Liberal-controlled Richmond and several Tory boroughs—is already rent with divisions. I understand that the Tory borough of Ealing—a wholehearted supporter of abolition—believes that the transfer of waste disposal services to the successor authorities should take place without detriment to existing

standards of service and that the most effective means of ensuring that is to maintain existing arrangements intact. Why is it calling for abolition?
The Minister was kind enough to give me, at short notice, a document that he has issued today. It contains revealing statements such as:
The nature and degree of co-ordination needed will hinge on the degree of dependence involved.
I wonder what that is supposed to mean.
Under the heading "Main Criteria," the document says:
The essential starting point is that all waste disposal functions can and should be carried out by borough and district councils.
That is clearly not the case. It has been demonstrated that they cannot carry out those functions on the basis of borough and district boundaries. That is the nexus of the Government's difficulties in this matter.
Because of lack of time and the need to press on to other important matters, such as the Inner London education authority, we shall not call for a Division on this amendment, but the debate has demonstrated that the Government's proposals on refuse are rubbish.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 8

MISCELLANEOUS FUNCTIONS

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 122, line 26, leave out paragraph 4 and insert
'4. —(1) In sections 17 and 18 of the Cinemas Act 1985 for the words "the Greater London Council" and "the Council", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted respectively the words "a local authority in Greater London" and "the authority".
(2) In section 21(1) of that Act, in the definition of "local authority", for the words "the Greater London Council" there shall be substituted the words "a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 50 and 60.

Mr. Shaw: These are purely technical amendments, Amendment No. 49 is made in consequence of the recent enactment of the Cinemas Act 1985.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 60 concern section 12 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which deals with the safety of children at certain entertainments. They provide that responsibility for enforcing the requirements in respect of buildings licensed as cinemas or theatres or for music and dancing will pass from the GLC to the London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London as the case may be.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 50, in page 122, line 41, at end insert—

'Children's entertainments

4A. In section 12(5)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 for the words from "licensed by" where they first occur to "the Greater London Council" there shall be substituted the words "licensed by a local authority" and for the words "the council of the county or county borough in which the building is situated" there shall be substituted the words "that local authority".'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 17

THE INNER LONDON EDUCATION AUTHORITY

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 13, line 3, at end insert
'and such enactments shall have effect subject to the provisions of Section 82 and sub-sections (7), (8) and (9) below.
(7)(a) In the principal Act, after section 141(2) there shall be inserted—
(3) For the purposes of this section, the Inner London Education Area shall be deemed to be a county and the Inner London Education Authority shall be deemed to be the council of that county.
(b) The Inner London Education Authority shall be treated as a local authority for the purposes of sections 132, 136, 137, 138, 142, 144 and 222 of the principal Act.
(8) (a) In section 31 of the London Council Council (General Powers) Act 1921, references to the Council shall be construed as references to the Inner London Education Authority.
(b) The Inner London Education Authority shall be treated as a local authority for the purposes of section 32 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
(c) in section 20(6) of the Value Added Tax Act 1983, after the words "Isles of Scilly" there shall be inserted the words "the Inner London Education Authority".
(9) For the purposes of facilitating the proper performance of the functions conferred on the Authority by section 44 of this Act and for that purpose onlyߞ

(a) references to the Council in paragraphs 16 and 17 of Schedule 2 to the London Government Act 1963 shall be construed as references to the Authority;
(b) the Authority shall be deemed to be a local authority within the meaning of section 25 of the Public Libraries and Museumns Act 1964;
(c) the Authority shall be deemed to be a local authority to whom the order confirmed by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967 applies;
(d) the Authority shall be deemed to be a local authority to whom section 15 of the Open Spaces Act 1906 applies.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 9, in clause 20, page 15, line 1, leave out from `agree' to end of line 2.
No. 10, in page 15, line 6, at end insert
'but no such guidance shall have the effect of requiring the authority to change policies which it has itself determined, unless such policies are in breach of any later legislative requirement.'.
No. 11, in page 15, line 9, leave out from `request' to end of line 10.
No. 12, in clause 21, page 15, leave out line 18 and insert—
'(1) Subject to subsection (7) below, the Secretary of State may before 31st March 1991, '.
No. 13, in page 16, line 6, at end insert—
'(7) No review shall be held under this section unless each House of Parliament agrees that the review is necessary'.

Mr. Straw: Amendment No. 83 provides that the Inner London education authority be treated as an ordinary local authority. The other amendments in the group are designed to constrain the Secretary of State's powers in the Bill to order a review of the operation of ILEA and to effect changes in 1991.
In theory, the Bill sets up an autonomous free-standing education authority for inner London. In practice, however, it will lack the powers necessary to function effectively. The Bill applies to ILEA all the powers and responsibilities in the Education Acts, but, because it is also a local authority, the Government have recognised

that the new ILEA must have powers additional to its education responsibilities. Clause 82 and schedule 14 amend existing local government legislation to provide ILEA with some of those general powers.
The problem is that the range of powers that has been given to ILEA is incomplete. That flows from the haste with which the Bill has been drafted and perhaps the Government's intention to constrain ILEA's non-statutory educational functions, especially in regard to adult, youth and community education, for which it has always had to use the wider powers available to the GLC as the umbrella authority.
I should like to list the powers with which we believe that ILEA should be provided. I hope that the Minister will accept my comments in the spirit in which they are intended. We believe that there is a genuine problem which the Department has perhaps not fully anticipated. That happens with complicated legislation. If the Minister is not able to agree to our amendments, I hope that he will say that he is willing to take the matter away and have it raised in another place.
The powers that we believe ILEA should have are available to every education authority. We are not asking for anything extra. Section 141 of the Local Government Act 1972 gives authorities the power to conduct research and collect information. ILEA has power to carry out educational research under the Education Acts, but many education problems can be illustrated only by wider social research, for example, which seems to be constrained by the powers presently available.
Section 132 of the same Act enables local authorities to provide accommodation for public meetings. At the moment, ILEA will be empowered to provide accommodation in schools only.
Section 136 of the 1972 Act provides for the joint funding by local authorities of overlapping functions. It is of considerable importance to ILEA, especially in regard to social services provisions for the under-fives and children with special needs. ILEA has always been in special circumstances in that, unlike any other local authority in the country, it does not also provide social services in its area. There is an important overlap of service provision, especially for children under five, where the social services department provides day care and ILEA provides nursery education, and a desire, shared by the Government and the authorities, to make joint provision, to ensure effective delivery and to prevent a waste of resources. That power is needed.
Every authority in the country has the power under section 137 to raise up to a 2p rate to provide for services which it considers necessary in its area. That power will no doubt be further constrained by general legislation but, whatever the overall constraints, it should be available to ILEA. At present it uses that power for entirely legitimate community purposes — for example, to let education premises to non-education users, such as community groups.
I think that there must have been an omission regarding section 138. It gives a local authority power to take such action as it thinks fit in the event of a disaster or emergency. It would seem essential for a large local authority with more than 1,000 public buildings to have such a power. That cannot be in dispute, but it seems to have been overlooked when the Bill was drafted.
Section 142 provides a power which enables a local authority to publish information. That power and the


power provided in section 137 are the subject of the Widdicombe inquiry, which will no doubt make recommendations. Hon. Members will accept that, whatever final conclusion is reached by the inquiry and approved by Parliament, it should be applied in an evenhanded way to all local authorities. Some of the use that ILEA has made of section 142 has been controversial between parties, and has been tested in the courts. However, a large part of its exercise of the power has been entirely non-controversial—for example, the publication of consultation documents about its budget. I hope that the Minister believes that ILEA should continue to have that power to publish information about its operations.
Section 144 provides the power to encourage visitors, and to provide conference and other facilities. The existing ILEA makes use of this power to let its colleges for conferences and thus to generate income and offset charges that would otherwise fall on ratepayers. I cannot believe that the Government are opposed to that sort of operation, which provides a return which is of benefit to ratepayers. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
Section 222 gives local authorities power to prosecute or defend legal proceedings and to make representations at a public inquiry. I am unclear why that should not be available.
Section 31 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1921 is necessary to transfer to the authority the power to make payment to employees, former employees and their dependants in the event of the abolition of the GLC. Why has that not been included?
Section 32 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 enables ILEA to maintain premises outside ILEA boundaries. These include special boarding schools, a county boarding school, rural and residential centres, school sports centres, a mountain centre and field study centres. Other education authorities maintain such premises within their areas, but our advice is that they do so under the powers available to their parent authorities. Our advice is that ILEA would lack such powers.
Section 20(6) of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 does not apply to ILEA. Therefore, it would appear that the new ILEA would not gain exemption from VAT. There are also problems about powers relating to transfers of parks and museums.
Everyone accepts that almost all the powers to which I have referred should be available to an education authority. It is not a matter of controversy. I hope that the Minister will take on board what I have said, and give the House and the other place a detailed reply about each power.
The other amendments relate to the power within the Bill to require a review of the exercise of ILEA's function at any time before 1991, and, if a review does not take place before 1991, to make it mandatory in 1991. We discussed the matter at length in Committee, and there is no need for me to rehearse the arguments. It is extraordinary that after lengthy consideration the Government, having for once listened to what people have to say, decided that the single-purpose ILEA should be maintained and, having therefore accepted the worth of ILEA, should now say, "All that being so, we shall still point a pistol at ILEA for a further six years in case we disagree with how it operates."
The Government claim to be a Government of good managers, but that is not the way to manage. The children

who are served by ILEA are what matter. The quality of service with which they are provided is bound to be adversely affected if the people who run the service are constantly facing uncertainty about the future of the organisation. They have already faced such uncertainty for many years.
Our amendments aim to provide that the review clause can be triggered only by an affirmative resolution of the House. If there is a good case for a review, it is reasonable that the House should accept it, and no doubt it will. That is the least that the Government should accept before triggering such a review and all the uncertainty following from it.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was in his most beguiling and treacherous mood, reminiscent of the days when he led the National Union of Students. One learns to read behind his gentle words. Only he could have said that in a non-political sense the Inner London education authority's consultative document on the budget was non-political. Anyone who looked at it would know that it was one of the many reasons why this provision, which permits expenditure on information, has been heavily criticised by people of all political persuasions. We should not listen too much to what he said on that point.
I shall confine my remarks to amendment No. 83. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friends have drawn the regulations that will cover the new ILEA sufficiently tightly. We have agreed that ILEA is to be a new directly elected body for the first time. When my hon. Friend replies to the debate, will he assure us that it will not be able to set up a police committee, a transport committee or a housing committee? Despite what the hon. Member for Blackburn said, it is not a normal education authority. Normal education authorities are committees of a major authority. That has always been the weakness of ILEA. As I said to the House yesterday, it was an afterthought of the Herbert commission. Herbert said that education should go to the boroughs, but Parliament decided otherwise. I do not criticise it for that. The decision put ILEA into an anomalous position. For example, the Greater London council could not decide the budgets that ILEA wanted; it always had to accept the precept.
5.30 pm
Now there is a separate body, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure us that there will be no repetition of the appalling waste of educational money on matters that have nothing to do with education. I wish that parents would get the message by examining the facts instead of some of the half-baked stories that come from county hall. Although the cost of educating pupils in ILEA's primary and secondary schools is higher than in most of its peer authorities, such as Bradford, Manchester and Liverpool, its results are worse because it will not concentrate on what I understood an education authority was for—the education of children. The authority is involved in areas which will not stand children in good stead when they want employment. Sometimes they are taught nonsense. Most parents who think about these matters—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will endorse this view — would much rather that teachers spent the full amount of educational money, instead of much of it being diverted to other purposes. That is the assurance that I want from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I wish to set the clause and the amendments in context, but before I do so I should say a word about the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). He is not well known for his liking of education in London, and he has attacked ILEA and ILEA schools for as long as I have known him. He does the cause of education a disservice by constantly sniping at educational provision in London. He would do well to remember that many of his constituents send their children to ILEA schools, are pleased with those schools, and will not thank him for trying to knock the standard of education provision in his constituency and in London as a whole.
Since the 1979 general election the Government have pursued a vendetta against the Inner London education authority, and this clause is a further stage in the vendetta. Soon after the 1979 election, Tory-controlled Wandsworth council put forward a plan to break up ILEA and to give educational authority to the boroughs. The Minister for Local Government produced a report in support of the proposal. He was a Back-Bench Member at the time, and the report was his bid for ministerial office. Now that he is on the Front Bench, why does he not drop the idea? He knows that it is nonsense. Is he continuing with it simply to justify the report that he wrote some years ago?
What stopped the Government at the time was the enormous wave of public opinion in support of retaining the Inner London education authority. The public said, "We want ever-improved education for our children, but we do not want the complete dismemberment of the authority." The Government drew back. Then came the idea of a joint board as part of the package of proposals which we are now discussing. Again the public said, "No, we want an elected education authority for London." The Government gave way to the force of public opinion, and, at that point, many Londoners believed that they had won the day. Then we heard about the details of the Bill. There will be an elected ILEA, but the Government are taking powers to keep the authority under tight financial control. Moreover, there is a threat to the future of the authority in the form of a review. The Government are taking powers to abolish ILEA, if necessary, or to remove many of its functions.
The Opposition believe that to be unnecessary. The Government can introduce legislation at any time to change local government and to abolish the authority if they so wish. In this case, the Government are practising a dishonest subterfuge. By slipping the powers into this legislation, the Government can say, "Of course, it will not happen for the moment and everything will be fine." However, in future, they can say, "But the House has passed the Bill and given us full authority to dismantle ILEA. All that we need is a one-and-a-half hour debate late at night." That is dishonest, and the Government have not made out a case for such an approach.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): The hon. Gentleman assumes that the review would have only one result. What would happen if the review discovered that, by 1991, the authority was behaving sensibly and was worthy of being continued?

Mr. Dubs: There are two answers to that. First, the Government do not need statutory powers to carry out a review of a local authority. They could conduct such a

review at any time without seeking legislative backing. Secondly, we know what is in the Government's mind. I repeat that there has been a vendetta against ILEA, and the clause is a further stage in that vendetta. If that is not so, why does the Minister not accept the amendments and drop his powers to dismantle or dismember the authority? He could say that if the Government wish to do so in future they could introduce legislation, as they normally would with such major issues, but the Government do not want to do that. The Minister is being dishonest in seeking to take powers now to dismantle or dismember a major education authority by statutory instrument.
I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about limiting the effectiveness of ILEA through a sloppy piece of drafting or through malevolence — I am not sure which it is. My hon. Friend made a good case for saying that ILEA must have the same powers as other local authorities if it is to function properly.
Constant politicking by the Government against ILEA has added to uncertainty. It is bad for the morale of those who work in education, and of parents who want the best possible education for their children. Of course, we all believe that ILEA could do better — so could all education authorities — but I believe that it is doing a pretty good job. I want it to be given the opportunity to get on with the job of serving the children, young adults and adults of London. The Government should leave ILEA alone, drop their silly proposals, and allow ILEA to do its job as it wishes without Government interference.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), but I shall address my remarks to amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11, which relate to clause 20 and consultation. Hon. Members will know that the clause proposes that the Inner London education authority should consult on its main policy objectives. The bodies with which it must consult are the Common Council of the City of London and the boroughs of inner London. We have tabled the amendments because implicit in the Government's proposals is a substantial risk, which would not apply to any other education authority in Britain, that the Secretary of State could intervene or that agencies other than those responsible for education could have a say in, and be able to determine, the policy of the education authority of inner London.
You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that ILEA has been developing, and now has, the most widespread and comprehensive consultation of any education authority. Each year, it consults parents and their representatives, governing bodies, and many groups that are interested in and directly concerned with education in London, not least teachers and others employed by the service. The result of that consultation is that, each year, the public can judge the priorities for the development of the largest education authority in Europe.
We do not want the Secretary of State to hold for himself the reserve power set out at the end of subsection (4), that he may direct the form of consultation, or the power at the end of subsection (5), that he may direct the matters on which there may be consultation. Most important, far and away the greatest threat is the power given to the Secretary of State, who by issuing guidance to which ILEA will be obliged to have regard, will be able to determine and overrule the policy objectives determined by ILEA. Our amendment would add that no guidance


which the Secretary of State issues, and none of his powers, should require the authority to change the educational policies which it has been set up to determine, which it has elected members to determine, and which it should have exclusive power to determine.
This part of the legislation manifests the Government's willingness at all stages to concentrate power in themselves and allow their Ministers to intervene when they wish. We must resist this, and we must allow those who are directly elected to run the education service and be able to make the decisions on what the policy for education should be.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: This is different from waste disposal.

Mr. Hughes: It is not different at all. The Government should never have made these decisions without putting the propositions out to a proper, independent, public inquiry in the first place. If they had done that, they would have realised that education is too precious a plant to be subject to a directive of a centralising Secretary of State.

Mr. Dunn: It may be helpful if I intervene now and attempt to answer some of the points made by Labour Members.
Our purpose in this legislation is to allow ILEA to continue to be maintained as a single purpose education authority. The major change is that it will be a directly-elected authority, and members will be constituted by direct elections. I am glad that there is some agreement among hon. Members on both sides of the House that ILEA is there to serve the interests of the children, and that is of paramount and prime importance.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) was somewhat militant. We have no vendetta against ILEA. On a number of occasions we have welcomed some of the pioneering work that it has undertaken. However, we cannot and will not be indifferent to some of the perversities that are taking place in the name of education in inner London, on matters that are not educational and can only be against the interests of children in inner London.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend says that he does not have a vendetta against ILEA, but it would appear that ILEA has a vendetta against children and the people who provide good money. Does my hon. Friend realise that ILEA spends £5 on every child, compared with £3 spent by the other metropolitan districts, and that for every 10 children who get A-level passes in the metropolitan districts, fewer than seven get them in ILEA? Is not ILEA a scandal and a disgrace?

Mr. Dunn: I welcome my hon. Friend's extremely low-profile intervention. I have all the statistics of all the local education authorities by my bed so that every night I can content myself with a perusal of them in order that I may know those which are good, those which are better and those which are downright bad.
5.45 pm
I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in his first debate on education matters as a Front Bench spokesman. He listed a number of measures of which ILEA believes that it will not be able to take advantage under the constraints of the legislation. I understand that ILEA has alleged that the absence of the powers with which amendment No. 83 deals represents a

serious deficiency in the Bill, because it would prevent the new ILEA from working as a full education authority if abolition goes ahead.
I should like to put the minds of both the House and ILEA at rest on two points. First, abolition will go ahead. Secondly, the absence of the powers in the amendment is not a serious deficiency, but the result of a reasoned assessment of the powers that will be appropriate to the new, single-purpose education authority.
We have deliberately not given the new ILEA the general powers covered in the amendment. Those general powers are appropriate to a general purpose local authority acting on behalf of the inhabitants of its area. They will continue and will be available for the lower tier authorities, the London boroughs. There is demonstrably no need for the new ILEA to have those powers for the same area.

Mr. Straw: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that at present many councils use these general powers for education purposes, and that therefore ILEA will be the only education authority that will not have those powers available for education purposes?

Mr. Dunn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, had we had time for this debate in Committee, I would have responded to the specific section headings that he again listed today. I shall address myself to the sections of the Local Government Act 1972 that would be extended to ILEA by the amendment. They are as follows: section 141, the power to undertake research; section 132, the power to provide accommodation for public meetings; section 136, the power to arrange joint funding of concurrent functions; section 137, the 2p rate provision; section 138, the power to deal with emergencies; and one or two others In the available time, I shall try to deal with them in that order.
If the amendment were accepted, the power to undertake research would be too widely drafted to be appropriate to a single purpose authority. The new ILEA will have adequate powers to conduct research related to its education functions under section 82 of the Education Act 1944.
Section 132—the power to provide accommodation for public meetings — applies to any kind of public meeting and is too wide for the new ILEA. However, the new authority will have power, under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, to provide accommodation for meetings that are incidental and related to its functions.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, at election time, the new ILEA will be in a position, under section 111, to allow rooms to be used for public meetings?

Mr. Dunn: I am sure that that provision is maintained; but if there is any doubt, I shall make the matter clear to my hon. Friend.
Section 136 concerns the power relating to joint funding of concurrent functions. ILEA seems to think that without section 136 it will not be able to fund joint initiatives. However, section 136 is concerned only with concurrent functions—that is, where two authorities have the same function in the same area. An example is grants to voluntary bodies. ILEA, because it is a single-purpose authority, does not have functions which are concurrent with those of any other authority. Section 136 is therefore


irrelevant to it. However, any joint initiatives and the joint funding of them are covered by section 101, which is being applied to the new ILEA.
As regards section 137 of the 1972 Act—the 2p rate provision — the Government have concluded that it would not be appropriate for the new education authority to have this wide power. It is suitable only for a general purpose authority acting on behalf of all the inhabitants in its area. That power will continue to be available to the London boroughs.
The hon. Member for Blackburn referred to the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1921. Amendment No. 83 would extend to the new ILEA the power in section 31 of that Act, to pay staff enhanced compensation for premature retirement in the interests of organisational efficiency. The 1921 Act is a local Act. In accordance with the precedents of the 1963 and 1972 Acts, the Government have not generally sought to amend local Acts on the face of the Bill. Appropriate amendments to local Acts will be made by order.
I cannot today give the House an assurance that we shall make an order to amend section 31 of the 1921 Act in the way proposed. However, I should be glad to consider detailed representations from ILEA about its successor's need for this power.
I appreciate the concern that has been expressed today and in Committee that the new ILEA should be exempted from the requirement to pay VAT on its non-business activities. That point was raised eloquently in Committee by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), to whom my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government subsequently wrote on 19 March.
As my right hon. Friend made clear in that letter, no amendment is necessary. The new ILEA — indeed, all the new authorities and residuary bodies — will be exempted from VAT by an order made by Treasury ministers under section 20 of the 1983 Act. That is a well accepted mechanism for extending VAT exemption to appropriate new bodies. I hope that the House will agree that that is the right course on this occasion.
A number of points were made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Amendment No. 10 is based on a misunderstanding of clause 20(5). There can be no suggestion — indeed, I am sure that no hon. Member would entertain such a suggestion—that my right hon. Friend's guidance could have the effect of requiring the authority to change its policies. There is no power in the clause enabling my right hon. Friend to use his guidance to bring about that end.
The guidance will seek to help the authority and the councils by explaining what might be regarded as main policy objectives, should they be in doubt on that score. It will be no more than guidance, and the duty placed on them is no more than to have regard to it. I hope that that short, brief, terse, honest and robust explanation will satisfy the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who is not always easily satisfied.
I have attempted in the time available to answer all the points that have been made. I reiterate that the power of review, to come into force by 1991, is right. I must tell the hon. Member for Battersea in all sincerity that whoever controls ILEA following elections must take account of the needs of the children and behave sensibly to avoid being

taken the type of route which he particularly dreads. It is, therefore, essential for Parliament to approve the provisions which will lead to review.

Mr. Frank Dobson: In a recent speech at Newcastle the Prime Minister attributed virtually all the wrongs in Britain to people setting a bad example. The parents and teachers whom I represent, like parents and teachers throughout inner London, would consider that this House was setting an appalling example were they to hear this pathetic half hour's alleged debate which will determine the future of ILEA into the 1990s if this perverse bit of legislation become law.
Whatever the burblings of the Under-Secretary, since 1979 the Conservatives have pursued a vendetta against ILEA and everything that it has attempted to do to raise education standards in inner London. If Conservative Members do not think that it has been a vendetta, I assure them that parents in my constituency who are concerned about their children's education have told me that they would not like to live through a vendetta if this has been friendly treatment.
Since the Conservatives took office, they have taken money away from the ILEA and derided every effort that it has made to improve education standards. When the present Minister of State represented a London seat, he was cajoled into producing what I can only describe as the snide and nasty little Baker report in an effort to damage ILEA so that he could crawl on to the Government Front Bench, having stamped on the faces of the children whom he was supposed to represent.
Following that, the Government ordered a special inquiry to be made by the inspectors of education, who gave ILEA a clean bill of health. There was some more shuffling around, that was followed by another threat to the future of ILEA, and now we are faced with the threat all over again.
The Secretary of State, surprisingly, did the sensible thing and said that he would maintain a unitary authority, but instead of sticking by what people thought he had decided, he is now insisting that he should be able constantly to hover in the background, like the spectre that he is, threatening the future of the education authority with the passage of every day of every year.
The people of inner London are sick to death of their education authority being turned upside down, being threatened and being deprived of money so that it cannot do the job which the people want it to do, and provide a better education service for their children. The Government are depriving the children of inner London of a decent service and are posing a massive threat to ILEA.

Mr. Straw: The figures of the Department of Education and Science show that, adjusting for social composition and class, ILEA's examinations record is better than that of the Wirral, Ely, Surrey and 41 other education authorities. We are dissatisfied with the Under-Secretary's reply and will divide the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 305.

Division No. 171]
[6 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Ashton, Joe


Alton, David
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)


Anderson, Donald
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)






Barnett, Guy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Barron, Kevin
Janner, Hon Greville


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Beith, A. J.
John, Brynmor


Bell, Stuart
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Benn, Tony
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bermingham, Gerald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Bidwell, Sydney
Lamond, James


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Buchan, Norman
Litherland, Robert


Caborn, Richard
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Loyden, Edward


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McCartney, Hugh


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cartwright, John
McKelvey, William


Clarke, Thomas
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Clay, Robert
McNamara, Kevin


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Madden, Max


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Marek, Dr John


Cohen, Harry
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Coleman, Donald
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Maxton, John


Conlan, Bernard
Meacher, Michael


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Michie, William


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Mikardo, Ian


Corbett, Robin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cowans, Harry
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Craigen, J. M.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Crowther, Stan
Nellist, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cunningham, Dr John
O'Brien, William


Dalyell, Tam
O'Neill, Martin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Park, George


Deakins, Eric
Pendry, Tom


Dixon, Donald
Pike, Peter


Dobson, Frank
Prescott, John


Dormand, Jack
Randall, Stuart


Dubs, Alfred
Redmond, M.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Richardson, Ms Jo


Eastham, Ken
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Ellis, Raymond
Robertson, George


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Rooker, J. W.


Ewing, Harry
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fatchett, Derek
Rowlands, Ted


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ryman, John


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Sheerman, Barry


Fisher, Mark
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Flannery, Martin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Forrester, John
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Foulkes, George
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Snape, Peter


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Soley, Clive


Freud, Clement
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, W. E.
Straw, Jack


Godman, Dr Norman
Tinn, James


Gould, Bryan
Torney, Tom


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Wainwright, R.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wareing, Robert


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Weetch, Ken


Heffer, Eric S.
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Winnick, David


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Woodall, Alec


Home Robertson, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Howells, Geraint



Hoyle, Douglas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. Ray Powell.


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Forth, Eric


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fox, Marcus


Amess, David
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Ancram, Michael
Freeman, Roger


Ashby, David
Fry, Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Galley, Roy


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Beggs, Roy
Goodlad, Alastair


Bellingham, Henry
Gow, Ian


Bendall, Vivian
Gower, Sir Raymond


Benyon, William
Grant, Sir Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, Harry


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gregory, Conal


Blackburn, John
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Body, Richard
Grist, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Grylls, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Graham
Hanley, Jeremy


Brinton, Tim
Hannam, John


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Brooke, Hon Peter
Harris, David


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Harvey, Robert


Browne, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruinvels, Peter
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Budgen, Nick
Hawksley, Warren


Burt, Alistair
Hayhoe, Barney


Butcher, John
Hayward, Robert


Butler, Hon Adam
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hickmet, Richard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hill, James


Cash, William
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Howard, Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon
Irving, Charles


Cope, John
Jackson, Robert


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cranborne, Viscount
Jessel, Toby


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dunn, Robert
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Key, Robert


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Eggar, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Evennett, David
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knowles, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lamont, Norman


Farr, Sir John
Lang, Ian


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Latham, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fletcher, Alexander
Lawrence, Ivan


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lee, John (Pendle)






Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Ryder, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lilley, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Scott, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McCusker, Harold
Shersby, Michael


Macfarlane, Neil
Silvester, Fred


MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Skeet, T. H. H.


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Maclean, David John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Major, John
Speller, Tony


Malins, Humfrey
Spence, John


Malone, Gerald
Spencer, Derek


Maples, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Marlow, Antony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maude, Hon Francis
Squire, Robin


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Steen, Anthony


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mellor, David
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stokes, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Sumberg, David


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moore, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Terlezki, Stefan


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Needham, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Newton, Tony
Trippier, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Norris, Steven
Twinn, Dr Ian


Onslow, Cranley
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Oppenheim, Phillip
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Osborn, Sir John
Viggers, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Waddington, David


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Parris, Matthew
Waldegrave, Hon William


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Walden, George


Pattie, Geoffrey
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)



Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Pollock, Alexander
Watson, John


Portillo, Michael
Watts, John


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Powley, John
Wheeler, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Whitfield, John


Raffan, Keith
Whitney, Raymond


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Rhodes James, Robert
Yeo, Tim


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Noes:


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Mr. Carol Mather and


Rost, Peter
Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Rowe, Andrew

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Six o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [11 February] and the Resolutions yesterday, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 18

ELECTIONS

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 13, line 27, leave out from '1983' to '; and' in line 28. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Schedule 9

INNER LONDON EDUCATION AUTHORITY: ELECTIONS AND ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

Amendments made: No. 51, in page 131, line 36, leave out 'After section 36' and insert—
'in section 36—
(a) after subsection (3A) there shall be inserted—
(3AA) Where the poll at an ordinary election of members of the Inner London Education Authority for an electoral division, or an election to fill a casual vacancy occurring in the office of member of that Authority for an electoral division, is to be held on the same date as the poll at an ordinary election of councillors for any ward of a London borough which is wholly included in that electoral division, or an election to fill a casual vacancy occurring in the office of councillor for such a ward, the polls at those elections shall be taken together."; and
(b) after subsection'.

No. 52, in page 132, line 35, leave out paragraph 2. —[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 22

PRELIMINARY

Mr. Clive Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 16, line 10, at beginning insert—
'(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) below,'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 85, in page 16, line 15, at end insert—
'(2) The provisions of this section and of sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 of this Act shall not have effect until the Secretary of State for the Home Department has reported to Parliament on the arrangements he proposes to ensure that the police, fire and civil emergency planning functions in each metropolitan county or Greater London as the case may be are discharged no less economically, efficiently and effectively under the provisions of this Part of this Act.'.
No. 86, in clause 23, page 16, line 16, after '(1)', insert
'Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 22,'
No. 87, in clause 24, page 17, line 3, after '(1)', insert
'Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 22,'
No. 88, in clause 25, page 17, line 41, after '(1)', insert
'Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 22,'
No. 89, in clause 26, page 18, line 9, after '(1)' insert
'Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 22,'.
No. 90, in clause 41, page 25, line 4, after '(1)', insert
'subject to the provisions of subsection (2A) below,'.
No. 117, in clause 41, page 25, line 6, leave out paragraph (a).
No. 91, in clause 41, page 25, line 24, after '(2)', insert
'subject to the provisions of subsection (2A) below,'.
No. 118, in clause 41, page 25, line 25, leave out paragraph (a).
Government amendment No. 17 and the amendments thereto: (a), to leave out "police."
(c), at end, add—
'(4) No order under this section shall alter the boundaries of a Metropolitan Police Force unless H.M. Chief Inspector of Constabulary has recommended that such a change be made; and the Chief Constables, Police Authorities and Police Federations of the forces affected have been given an opportunity to comment.'.
No. 92, in clause 41, page 25, line 42, at end insert—
'(2A) No order shall be made under subsections (1) and (2) of this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report, including an independent assessment, of the arrangements to be made, following the making of such an order, to ensure the more effective discharge of the functions that would otherwise continue to be exercisable by a joint authority constituted by this Part of this Act.'.

Mr. Soley: We seek to make the Government lay a report before Parliament to ensure that the police, fire and emergency services are efficiently run before the changes are brought about. We have debated this matter in Committee because the Opposition, and many people outside the House, are far from satisfied that the Government have given sufficient thought to the problems that they are creating in the metropolitan counties and for fire and emergency services in the GLC area.
The Government are centralising powers. The Bill is ill thought out. The Government claim that they are trying to pass powers to local bodies, but the evidence is that they are centralising, and taking powers from local communities. The joint boards will result in individuals in local authority areas facing difficulties in making effective representations to their elected representatives. We are talking not about localising but about centralising decision making and creating a semi-quango body. I believe that most of us feel that such a system is abhorrent to the idea of British local democracy. Wherever there is a case for setting up quangos, it is certainly not a case in terms of local democracy.
The Government claim that the measures will save money. That is one of the most interesting of the Government's arguments. The services concerned take up a great deal of the finances of the metropolitan counties. The Government claim that they will cut public expenditure by introducing these boards. That bizarre argument did not stand up to analysis in Committee. The Conservative party took power on the manifesto belief that if public expenditure were cut, the Government could regenerate the economy. When the Government discovered that they could not cut public expenditure because of increasing unemployment, they in effect said to local authorities, "Don't do as we do—do as we tell you." They imposed cuts on local authorities to try to cut public expenditure. This terrible hotch-potch of measures is unlikely to save money.
6.15 pm
This is happening when the Government are very much on the defensive about law and order. In 1979 and 1983, the Conservative party claimed that it was the great law and order party. What have we had? There has been more disorder on our streets than under any other Government in recent history and a dramatic rise in the crime rate. At the same time, the Government have cut funds, as I said during Question Time today, to all the local authorities that are trying to spend money on the sensible public

services that prevent crime—caretakers, park keepers, toilet attendants, rehabilitation and renovation of council houses and grants to private owner-occupiers who need to do up their houses to prevent burglaries. The Government are not really interested in crime prevention.
When I even have The Standard on my side, pointing out that people are more afraid under this Government than they were before, I know that the Government are rattled about the effects of their economic policies, which are undermining the social fabric and doing so much to bring about the crisis in law and order.
The Government have had an opportunity to do something sensible to examine the way in which we control the police force. The system has grown up hotch-potch over the years. Odd situations have arisen, for historical reasons. Magistrates sit on police boards outside London because, last century, it was argued that those areas did not have the political experience of the urban areas and that magistrates were required to sit on those boards before the areas came under the control of elected politicians. One hundred years is a long time to be politicised, even for Government Members.
The Government have had an opportunity to do something about London. We are looking for evidence that all the services will be provided properly. The other day, The Standard—which is not by any means a Labour paper —ran headlines saying that Scotland Yard had bungled the siege at Philbeach gardens. Contrary to two televison news reports, I did not criticise the police at all. I criticise the Home Secretary.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmonds): I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Soley: I did not criticise the police at all. I said that, if Mr. Baigrie's behaviour had changed significantly from the previous two days, the actions of the police might well have been justified. If his behaviour had not changed, an explanation was needed as to why the police decided to act as they did. Who is the police authority for London? None other than the Home Secretary. What does the Home Secretary do when asked about the incident by myself and the media generally? He says nothing. He is surprised when the press come out with headlines saying that Scotland Yard bungled it. Conservative, not Labour, newspapers have said that. This shows the mess involving law and order and control of the police in which the Government are involved.
If we had had proper accountability, as the Opposition would like—whether via the Home Secretary or, as I would prefer, through an elected authority — those questions would have been answered and the fears expressed by the media and other individuals could have been allayed, without criticism being thrown around in the way it was.

Mr. Giles Shaw: On the Baigrie incident, I want the House to be clear that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, when asked about the matter, gave his opinion firmly in total support of the action of the Metropolitan police.

Mr. Soley: I wish the Minister would tell us something we do not know. Of course we know that. The people and the press were asking why the police had changed their tactics. That was a perfectly reasonable question. It was not a criticism. The senior police officer in charge said that


he would wait as long as necessary. Two days later the police went in. On Friday, on breakfast television, I said that the man's behaviour might well have deteriorated and that that would explain and justify the actions of the police. Those were my words. It is no use the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) looking puzzled. I was very clear about that. The Home Secretary afterwards ducked out of his responsibility as the police authority for London and refused to give an explanation. The result was that the senior police officer in charge had to issue a press release. That was a totally wrong way of dealing with the matter.
Most of these questions affect the police and the fire and emergency services of the metropolitan counties. There is a clear conflict between the Department of the Environment and the Home Office. Lord Whitelaw had this to say:
I think it is going to be a difficult problem getting the Police Authorities right after the Metropolitan Counties are over. I think this is going to be difficult. I always thought that was one of the difficulties of doing this. It is, and I don't think you'd find anyone in the Home Office who doesn't accept that.
Even the Minister of State seems to accept it.
I can pray in aid not just The Standard but the chief constable of Greater Manchester, Mr. Anderton, who said:
Serious disruption of the major metropolitan forces in this country at perhaps the most sensitive period in police history in modern times, makes no kind of sense at all.
It is very unusual for me to pray in aid the chief constable of Greater Manchester. It is a first offence and I shall probably never do it again, but let me make the best of it while I can. Other chief constables have registered their doubts.
Indeed, it is hard to find anybody who is in favour. In Committee the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) said about savings:
I doubt whether any would come from the fire services in relation to the money spent on manpower, equipment and services." — [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 February 1985; c. 1417.]
One week later, his right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said:
Let me also make it clear that we see scope for savings in the fire service, and we shall use the powers in clauses 64 and 80 to secure those savings." — [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21 February 1985; c. 1569.]
So what savings do the Government expect to make? They want to save money on administration, but at best the savings will be peanuts. However, the Minister for Local Government went on to say that they needed controls to prevent
a great explosion of the bureaucratic and organisation sides of the fire and police services after abolition."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21 February 1985; c. 1569.]
He is worried about the fact that the joint boards will be an administrative nightmare and will not result in public expenditure reductions. So there is a clash between the two Ministers.
However, it would be wrong of me to imply that the hon. Member for Pudsey is guilty of consistency, for he had this to say about savings:
It is not our intention to secure savings in the number of police officers. It is hoped—no more than that"—
the Minister is a cautious man—
that there may be a significant administrative saving in some authorities." — [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 February 1985; c. 1403.]
He had stated earlier:

The amount currently falling on metropolitan counties for administrative services with the police is very low — 10 per cent. or less of police expenditure—and there are about 3,000 administrators within the system of the metropolitan counties who are overseeing the police authority. Therefore, the figure does not include a very large number in the seven authorities concerned nor is it a very high sum in the police authorities' budgets. Therefore, while savings may be possible, they will not be large." — [Official Report, Standing Committee G. 14 February 1985; c. 1387.]
Indeed they will not be large. Coopers and Lybrand, among others, suggest that these services will cost more.
There is not only inconsistency between Government Departments but inconsistency in the Ministers' own contributions in Committee. It is yet another example of the way the Government talk about law and order and about the needs of the police, fire and emergency services, but all their actions are counter-productive when it comes to the efficient running of these services. That is why this amendment ought to be adopted. It is no wonder that Lord Whitelaw was worried. He had a right to be worried.
The joint boards will be responsible for three of the most important local services that are paid for by the metropolitan counties. Not only will the joint boards be undemocratic, but they will encourage a clash of interests. If an individual goes to a councillor and says that he wants to put a question to the fire board, the police board or another board, that councillor, if he is not on the board in question, will have to go to another councillor who is on the board, or he will have to refer the individual to that councillor.
What will happen if there is a clash of interests either between the two authorities or between the two councillors? They will be unable to work out their differences in a committee of which they are both members. Nor will it be possible for other councillors automatically to question the chief fire officer, the chief police officer or the councillor concerned. So there will be clashes of interest between local authorities and within local authorities. All this is being done in the belief that vitality will be restored to local democracy when in fact it is being undermined.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Would this be any different from a constituent going to a councillor on a housing matter? If that councillor is not on the housing committee, he has to talk to another councillor who sits on that committee. I do not believe that there is any difference.

Mr. Soley: I would not expect it of the hon. Member, because he has not thought about it very much. If he had thought about it he would know that the councillor can go and see the chief officer and that he can also take up the matter on the floor of the council. That will not be possible with a joint board, or anything remotely like it. The members of those boards will not be elected, so if the hon. Member thinks about it he will realise that what he has said is nonsense. After three years, local authorities will be able to form their own police auhorities, if they wish to do so.
However, it was reported in The Times on 30 July 1984 that when the Home Secretary was approached by worried Members of Parliament he told them not to worry because the powers that would allow the break-up of the police authorities in the metropolitan counties will never be used. Although those powers are included in the Bill the Home Secretary is telling worried Back Benchers that they will


never be used. It is nonsense. I have never seen such a mess between two Departments, both of which dislike each other for going ahead with the Bill. We all know that the Home Office does not want the Bill but that it is stuck on this hook because the Secretary of State for the Environment has decided to push the Bill through with the backing of the Prime Minister. It is an incredible mess. It is undemocratic, expensive, inefficient and contradictory, yet we are dealing with services covering the police, fire and civil and natural disasters.
Speaking of natural disasters, I should like to know why the Secretary of State for the Environment is not here to answer the question and tell us where, having brought about this disaster, he thinks the savings will come from. If the Minister of State, Home Office, and the Minister for Local Government cannot agree, a Cabinet Minister ought to be here to tell us what it is all about. Therefore I strongly urge the House to vote for the Opposition amendment.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I wish to speak to the amendments that stand in my name and I declare my interest, which is well known to the House, in the police service. I put down these amendments in the general context of the police service having gone through an exceedingly difficult period during the past few years. Above all, it needs stability and the support of this House. In my view, such now are the levels of clime and violence in our country that the Government would do well to address those problems rather than the future boundaries of the metropolitan police forces. Their priority is in the wrong place.
Secondly, the police service is now confronted with a whole series of changes, most of them, I think, desirable: for instance, the independent prosecution service that is soon to come into being and the videotaping of interrogations.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The taping of interrogations.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, taping. Perhaps I am a year or so ahead of my hon. Friend the Minister. Those and many other changes arise from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, including the new procedures for complaints, discipline, custody officers, powers, and so on. In those circumstances, I am sure that I will have the full support of all quarters of the House in saying that stability is what the police service needs above all else.
6.30 pm
Therefore, it came as a surprise to me that the Government should have felt compelled in the Bill to give the Secretary of State power to dismantle any of the metropolitan police forces outside London whenever he wants to do so. I understand that previous police legislation has always given the Secretary of State power to alter police boundaries. There is nothing new about that. But, at a time when the police service is going through this enormous series of changes, I am surprised that it should be confronted by the Government with the possibility that the force boundaries in all the big metropolitan forces could be up for grabs.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Gentleman said that that power is always included in police legislation. Given his relationship with the Police Federation, can the hon. Gentleman say why the Government want the powers in this legislation when they are already in the Police Act 1964? That is the way in

which amalgamations and changes have taken place before. Frankly, I do not understand it, but the hon. Gentleman may well have sorted it out.

Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks with enormous authority on these matters. I should have thought, and my advice is, that the power is unnecessary, but we all know that the Government have their own legal advice and parliamentary draftsmen. It may be that there is some reason for its inclusion. We shall be interested to hear from the Minister on that.
My objections can be put fairly simply. Aware as I am that several of my hon. Friends want to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be briefer than perhaps I should be. First, we should be turning the clock back if we were to open the door to the breaking up of the metropolitan forces. It is not 11 years—the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) will remember this—since we were amalgamating the small force areas, and that has not been an easy task. Bringing together the previous city force areas into the new metropolitan counties has been difficult in all sorts of practical ways —putting together the command systems, headquarters, computers, arrangements for police housing and promotion, and so on. But on the whole the metropolitan police forces have been a success. Their performance over the past year is testimony to that. Therefore, it is wrong now to open the door, which is all that the clause does, to the confusion that there was before.
My second objection to the clause is that, as soon as it is passed, it will usher in a period of confusion, scene shifting and job hunting within the metropolitan police force areas. It is impossible to imagine that the great cities of Birmingham, Liverpool or Sheffield, once they have back all the other powers that the Bill provides to them — I confess that I am a supporter of that — will not demand, if they can, control of their police forces. Indeed, there is already some evidence from Birmingham that the city fathers, backed by a number of people, possibly including even the former chief officer, will start to demand the return of control over the Birmingham force.
Once that happens, hon. Members, whether Labour or Conservative, will feel bound to support their local authorities in demanding that the large metropolitan forces shall be broken up and that control shall return to the cities. So there can be no doubt that, once the Bill is passed, it will usher in a period of uncertainty and of grabs for jobs.
The third and perhaps the strongest objection that I have is an operational one. It simply does not make sense in contemporary policing terms to have two, three, or possibly even four, police forces in the same bricks and mortar area. Policing today has to be done over a fairly large area. Matters such as training, policy, equipment, and the general attitudes of the police and their chief officers towards the many problems that they confront, must be handled within the same conurbations on a broadly consistent and coherent basis.
Once the metropolitan forces are broken up into three or four, as they were before, there will inevitably be overlaps and differences; some chief officers will take one view and others another. Equipment arrangements may be different and there will be different police authorities, perhaps under different political control, within the same


bricks and mortar area. That is a recipe not for better policing but for worse policing, and it is a retrospective move at present.
I want to give my hon. Friend the Minister, whose judgment in these matters he knows I respect, one or two examples. If there were to be a return to the old arrangements in south Yorkshire whereby Sheffield, and possibly Rotherham, had their own force, the police training school would be in one district and the headquarters in another. In the west midlands, assuming we went back to a Birmingham force, the command and control computer would be in one district and the main headquarters functions in another. They would all have to be reshuffled. In Northumbria the computer unit and training school would be in one district and the stores and equipment in another. So it goes on.
One of the advantages of the large metropolitan forces is that they can patrol motorways in their areas consistently. If we went back to the old arrangements, for example in the Greater Manchester area, the old Salford force would be responsible for about 19·5 miles of the M62, what was Rochdale for 20·7 miles and Bury for 8·4 miles. It makes no sense to have the M62 separately patrolled in the same conurbation by three forces. Similarly, three jurisdictions would cover the M63 in that area.
I could easily quote similar figures that have been provided to me by the Police Federation. The M1 in south Yorkshire would pass through three different jurisdictions, as would the M18. In the west midlands, in one remarkable case, we would probably find that the M6 was within the jurisdiction of no fewer than five different police authorities as a result of the break-up of the west midlands force area.
I am bound to quote, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) did, the chief constable of Manchester. I sometimes have a different view of life from Mr. Anderton, but I think that he put it well when he said:
I cannot understand why this clause is in the Bill. Serious disruption of the major metropolitan forces in this country at perhaps the most sensitive period in police history in modern times makes no sense.
Who is against this arrangement? All branches of the police service are against it. Superintendents are against it. The chief officers, with possibly one exception, are against it, and possibly one or two of those who are looking upwards can see that there would be more chief officer jobs. The federation is strongly against it and it is right to say that most Members, certainly of the Committee, and I imagine of the House, will have received a well-argued document from the federation which makes clear its objections to the clause.
It would be wrong to quote it in full, but the Police Federation's conclusion is that such an arrangement would be a retrograde step that would lead to more inefficiency, and should not be carried through on any kind of operational grounds. Those against the proposal include the police and a Select Committee. Indeed, a Select Committee considered the amalgamations as long ago as the mid-1960s, and the metropolitan forces were put together on the basis of its recommendations. We are now opening the door — my hon. Friend the Minister will know why I keep using that phrase—to their possible break-up.
At that time, the Select Committee said that it believed that many economies would result from the single headquarters that would emerge in the new force areas. It said that there would be benefits in beat and patrol work, in motor patrols, in economies of scale and in equipment. Thus, the police and the Select Committee were against that suggestion.
Who is in favour? [Interruption.] It is not for me to judge the views of my colleagues. I speak only for myself, but those in favour include several hundred ambitious local councillors who would like to get their hands on the police service. This is neither the time nor the place to go into the politics of the issue. I wish that we were debating accountability and the powers of police authorities, but we are not. However, those in favour include quite a few ambitious local councillors who would like to get their hands on the police. That is my central point.
I am anxious to ensure that the police are kept out of politics and that politics is kept out of policing. The danger is that, if we open the door, we shall find many local councillors demanding back control of their police, and there will be a tendency to start throwing stones at the existing metropolitan police forces in order to justify breaking them up and returning them to what will be described as "local control". The metropolitan forces are criticised enough as it is. If the clause is accepted as it stands, interest will be generated at local council level in criticising the metropolitan forces so that their return to local control can be justified.
On those grounds, I very much hope that the Government will reconsider the position. I greatly welcome the undertaking that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given, that he does not intend to take advantage of the powers in the Bill. I know that he plans to fulfil that undertaking to the letter, because he knows probably better than I do that such a provision would not make operational sense. My hon. Friend the Minister was good enough, in Committee, to quote a letter written to me by him or by my right hon. Friend in which those undertakings were set out in some detail.
My hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt tell the House that there is nothing to worry about, because the Government do not intend to use the powers in the Bill. But if he does not want to use them, I am not sure why they are there. In any case, when the House passes legislation, it cannot simply have regard to the intentions or statements of Ministers. It must have regard to the powers that will exist for future Ministers in future circumstances. I do not wish to make any sort of political point—I am trying to be as objective as possible—but undertakings given by any Home Secretary are not sufficient for the police service. The police service cannot operate just on the basis of one Government's undertaking. It must have consistent policies over a long period of time. The police service deserves better of the Government, and I ask them to think again.

Mr. Terry Fields: I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 85 to clause 22, with particular reference to the fire service. As someone who spent 26 years in the fire service before becoming a Member of Parliament—20 years of which were spent being active in the Fire Brigades Union—I think that I speak with some authority. I shall concentrate on the part of the amendment that refers to functions being discharged


no less economically, efficiently and effectively.
The Government have not blundered into the present situation, nor does their planning have anything to do with democracy, "economy", "efficiency" or "effectiveness". There fore, they must be aware of all the implications of their undemocratic and philistine actions. The implications for the fire service, the jobs of firemen and the service given to the community are, to my mind, one of the most serious and criminal aspects of this legislation, and need exposing.
I have no illusions, and those outside Parliament should not have any illusions, that the so-called "debate" on this and other clauses is anything other than a charade. Conservative Members will faithfully troop through the Government Lobby like sheep, despite the implications that the Labour party's amendment seeks to avoid. For working people, the attack on those services, which is implicit in the Government's proposals, has to be explained, and needs to be set against statements made by the Home Secretary to the chief fire officers' conference last year, and against the review of standards of fire cover, as well as current surveys of risk categories.
At the chief fire officers' conference last year, the Home Secretary referred to the fire service having to become more cost-effective and spoke of it
not being exempt from the rigorous financial scrutiny which has to be applied to all Local Authority services".
Moreover, the role of the fire service inspectorate is to be changed in order to allow it to comment on what it sees as the "over-provision" of fire cover, when it makes its annual inspection. That is a departure from its previous role.
After the Brighton bombing, the Home Secretary said:
Before the dust of the explosion had settled, the Fire Service had begun its task of rescuing the survivors and searching for the dead.
To the Fire Brigades Union, it is amazing that within 15 days of that tragic incident the Home Secretary should have expressed his wish to oversee the destruction of the fire service as we know it.
The standards of fire cover that the Government have embarked upon are intended to reduce the cost by cutting the number of men and appliances, and running day and night cover with fewer men and fewer fire services. Firemen, in particular, need to understand and prepare for the attacks on their jobs. But perhaps more importantly, the public, who sometimes take it for granted that a fire engine will be there when required, are in danger of having that provision removed.
The setting up of joint boards is but a prelude to the fragmentation of the fire service through the transfer of services to the metropolitan district councils. It is difficult to see how the withdrawal of part of an integrated unit will not damage the whole, although it may appear attractive for certain district councils to do that. The Coopers and Lybrand report on the breakaway option stated:
Cost increases could be expected to arise as a consequence of breakaways … There is no clear evidence to suggest that a breakaway would improve the overall effectiveness of police or fire in any area.
The consultants estimated that Wirral's bid to run its own fire service would add 1 per cent. to the revenue cost of the proposed Merseyside joint fire board. The Government's attempt to create joint boards is undemocratic, and must be set against the Government's policies on other issues that are disastrous and devastating for working people.
We must also ask why all this is happening. We need to explain the position to workers. The answer is that it is part of the Government's overall attack on services, which has been brought about by the crisis in the economy and which bears a direct relationship to the attack on local authorities, on civil servants' jobs and pay, and on coal, steel, shipping and other nationalised industries. The Government have been unable to embark on the spending programme that they have a duty to undertake because of the crisis in the economy.
Since 1979, the Government have been responsible for creating a slump out of a recession, with 20 per cent. of industry being closed down as Britain becomes for the first time a net importer of manufactured goods. Against that economic background, the Government attack the social services, the fire services and the other services that they have a responsibility to finance.
Between 1979 and 1983, manufacturing investment in this country fell by 41 per cent. and at the beginning of 1983 was only at 1959 levels. The Economist, which is hardly a militant publication, says that a 40 per cent. increase in investment is necessary to keep pace with our competitors abroad. The investment rate, which is conditioned by some of the policies of this Government, is only 3 per cent., while investment of money abroad has trebled since 1979 to £375 billion, or £1,800 for every working person in this country.
Workers need to understand the entirely new situation in this country and what the Government are doing with their tax on jobs. After the slump in 1929, by 1933 this country had recovered and output exceeded the 1929 level. In the third quarter of 1983, we still required in this country a 15 per cent. rise in manufacturing output even to regain the 1979 level. British capitalism, through the policies of this Government, is thinner and a hell of a lot sicker, and we shall not have recovered from the first years of Thatcherism before we are overtaken by another world recession.
These are economic points which the workers need to understand, in particular members of the fire service, because in the Fire Brigades Union we equate what is happening to our service with the Ridley report on the coal industry. After the strikes in the early 1970s, the Ridley report was brought into being to deal with the coal industry. After the firemen's strike in 1977–78, firemen achieved a formula on pay, thanks to the services of the then Home Secretary. That formula, which equated firemen's pay with that of male manual workers in industry, is a millstone around the neck of this Government and of local authority employers. Metropolitan areas in general were the most militant during that dispute and Merseyside and Cheshire, my own area, were the most militant in the struggle for wages and conditions.
Since then, there has been an attempt by this Government to intervene directly in pay negotiations on behalf of firemen. A survey was done during that period of the most militant areas that would need to be tackled if the Government were to have their way. The Government believe that a break-up of the metropolitan areas and fragmentation in those areas would reduce opposition to those pay policies and this attack on jobs.
For the fire service, the effect of these attacks will be a diminution of services and a loss of jobs. Insurance losses on property and goods will increase. Also, of course, loss of life will ensue from the reduced service and


the reduced ability of the fire service to fulfil its commitments, including the loss of firemen's lives. We give the Government fair warning that their attacks on our industry will be met with resistance by firemen and the Fire Brigades Union.
The Government, through some aspects of their policy, are raising the spectre of privatisation of the fire service. The public must understand what will happen when firemen and special appliances are not available, when fire prevention in hotels and boarding houses is reduced by the attacks that will of necessity take place with the fragmentation of our metropolitan areas. We shall have spiv organisations attempting to sell so-called smoke masks, like the one I have here, for protection, because the fire service will not be there to look after the interests of people in boarding houses, hotels and indeed, prisons. This will be part of the spiv's paradise with privatisation within the fire service.
The Fire Brigades Union and its members will not permit the decimation of their industry. A campaign will be waged in the metropolitan areas such as Merseyside on a par with the Liverpool campaign against the Secretary of State's intentions. We will take our campaign out to the trade unions and the communities and on to the estates.
This amendment is intended to prevent the disastrous results of the Government's intentions. We give fair warning that, even if this amemdment is defeated and the Bill becomes law, the fire service, the Fire Brigades Union and the people who rely on the dedication and self-sacrifice of the firemen will not stand idly by and allow the Government to implement such disastrous, dangerous and objectionable legislation. Industrial action on behalf of the Fire Brigades Union will ensue to save jobs and save lives. I say again, we give fair warning that firemen will not stand idly by and see their industry decimated.

Mr. Fred Silvester: I intervene briefly because this subject of the joint authorities as they affect the police relates to part of the arguments against the Bill which I find particularly difficult to understand. I cannot see why such intense opposition has been aroused. Those who support the Bill have been moved by a desire to give the district authorities as much power as possible. That is the fundamental principle underlying the Bill. It is recognised that, of necessity, many functions will have to be carried out jointly by the districts. That is not a new proposition. That has been going on in local government as long as anybody can remember. To say that doing things jointly and nominating somebody from a council to a joint authority is undemocratic seems to me to be to use the word very oddly. It is a different form of democracy, but clearly persons elected are still responsible for the service.
I have quoted this example before, and it is not a silly one. In Manchester, representation on the police authority will increase by one councillor under the Bill. That will make sure that the representation covers more than one party. It could be argued that the nature of the democratic control, as far as the ordinary elector is concerned, is enhanced. What matters—we keep coming back to this point — is not the refinements as defined by the councillors, but what is recognised by the ordinary elector. That is not the structure. Whether it be someone from the city council or the Greater Manchester council, it is a

person who is identifiable on a local council or a city council. People go to the city council for functions that are not even within its purview simply because it is an identifiable unit. I think, therefore, that the democratic argument has always failed in this case.
The argument which I think has more weight—this is where my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has pitched his case—is the one about efficiency and effectiveness. We have all received representations from various people in the police force about clause 41; and I listened with great care to what my hon. Friend said, because he knows a lot about the police force. I was mystified, however, because, as I understand it, he claims that the powers already exist to make changes in police boundaries, and to that extent the Bill does not add to them.
The second argument is that this is a difficult time for the police, and therefore not the time to disturb the boundaries. But we already have the undertaking from the Government that such disturbances will not take place in the immediate future. If they do take place, it will not be immediately. Therefore, two of my hon. Friend's arguments seem to fall.
In the rest of his argument, which was very well put, as always, he gave examples of what would happen if the service were chopped up. This comes back to the main point about local authorities. They work together when it is in their interests to do so. If, as my hon. Friend quite rightly said, a countywide service is of benefit to the boroughs and the districts, it will continue to operate. It is not possible for him to foresee whether that will always be the case.
To take his political argument, if a group of boroughs were confronted with an authority which became highly politicised and, despite the presence of the magistrates, extremely bad in its treatment of the police, it could well be argued that it would be in the interest of the citizens of a district to opt for their own police force and to decide, in the interest of putting down crime in that area, to have a less politicised police force. We are assured that the Government do not have that in mind now, because it does not seem necessary or desirable, but we cannot say that such powers might not be necessary at some time.

7 pm

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the courteous way in which he has put his case. I hope that he will address his mind to two matters. First, we are putting in the shop window of the Bill an invitation to the successor authorities to ask for the return of their police forces. I find that public invitation particularly unfortunate. Secondly, some people politically want control of the police. They make no bones about that. This is an invitation to them to assert what I believe to be a dangerous aspiration.

Mr. Silvester: By simply reasserting powers that already exist, the Bill does not undermine the police.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The first time that I spoke in the House was on the Police Bill in 1964. On that occasion, or just before, I listened to my first debate in the House when a Conservative Member said that he did not want to be political. I thought that strange considering the reason why I tried to become a Member of Parliament. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) made


much the same point about politicising. Most of the issues with which police and fire committees deal are political but by "political" most people think of the rubbish that passes for politics at general election time, which is spawned by public relations experts who over-simplify matters. I wish to be political and to discuss issues about which the electorate should be concerned.
We need answers from the Minister on several matters. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) talked about boundaries. Amalgamations occurred before 1974 in connection with the Police Act 1964. In 1974, the changes were the result of local government reform and were forced upon the Government of the day.
I do not pretend that the areas are right. I used to think it odd that the west midlands police force should have so many policemen, when Warwickshire, with an excellent chief constable who went to Lancashire and to London, should have only 800 policemen.
We do not need a boundary commission—we know what boundary commissions do — we need another Royal Commission on the police, as we had in 1960, to examine all the issues. The matter must not be dealt with piecemeal by means of a hurried and short debate. It is vital that Parliament should receive reports. The Opposition are not making a revolutionary request by asking for that.
When I was Home Secretary I worked with joint boards for north and south Wales. I did not like them. I say that not because they were Welsh joint boards, and I intend no reflection on the people who operated them. Joint boards represent the wrong approach. We were forced into them in south Wales because of the decision to break up south Glamorgan. That was a political decision in the sense that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds used the term. The decision was made not for rational reasons, but to provide south Glamorgan with a Conservative majority once in a blue moon.
The chief constables do not like joint boards. The chief constable in west Yorkshire does not like them. He believes that they give more power to Whitehall. No one could be less political than that chief constable, but he makes a political point by saying that he is against the joint boards. Lord Whitelaw has made the Home Office view clear.
Who will take the lead in the services? Will it be west Yorkshire? Leeds has eight members on the police authority. Will it take the lead because it provides the most money? Will the treasurer from Kirklees, the secretary from Bradford and the solicitor from somewhere else be involved? What about the financial arrangements? Leeds is the richest authority in these terms. The chairman of the police authority is a county councillor, and he has examined the needs not only of Leeds, but of Calderdale. They will be precepted separately, and the people of Leeds will not take kindly to extra money going to Calderdale in the west riding. The break-up will cause problems.
In order to pay for real growth in police and fire services in west Yorkshire, it has been necessary to cut back or shelve new developments in other county council services. I am worried when the Secretary of State for the Environment talks about saving manpower and having more centralised control over the next three years over financial arrangements.
We are asked what difference it makes whether a person goes to a district or a county councillor. Morley and south Leeds has four county councillors, one of whom is

chairman of the police committee. That is fortuitous. Things will not be the same. Members of the Leeds Labour, Conservative and small Liberal groups will be told that eight members are needed for the joint board. In the early days the younger, inexperienced councillors will be appointed, because the current chairmen and vice-chairmen of the council committees will not want to give up their posts to be mere members of the police authority. Problems are inevitable.
An ad hoc measure has been slipped into the Bill to deal with the police. The miners' strike has caused the constitution of police authorities to be questioned. One is afraid to open one's mouth, because if one says 'anything about the police one is accused of attacking them. Some problems of organisation and accountability are long term. Who likes what is going on in Merseyside? It reveals that something is wrong.
The role of the Home Secretary and the question of finance have been brought into question. The Bill cannot deal with such issues. We need a Royal Commission on the police to examine all these matters over two years and to report back to the House. Until that happens we ask for reports to the House.

Mr. Geoff Lawler: I should like to add to the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) about the democratic element of joint boards. My hon. Friend made a most important point, but other matters must be taken into account following remarks by Opposition Members. It is absurd to argue that joint boards are not democratic, because the councillors involved will be fully accountable to the electors and to their councils. If a person wishes to take up a problem about transport, fire or the police, he will approach his district councillor. If that councillor is not a member of one of the joint boards, he or she can raise the matter directly with the member of the joint board or at a council meeting.
Many people are unaware of the separation of functions. People are not aware of how the system works, so they will go to the person whom they know best—usually their district councillor. That councillor can raise the matter at city hall and question the person responsible directly. At the moment the district councillor would have to say, "That is not my responsibility. You should speak to the county councillor." Therefore, the constituent will have to write another letter or approach another person. Under the new arrangement, the councillors will be in the same building and people will be able to question them directly. It will be a simplified system, and it will be of great benefit to people in the metropolitan areas and in London. They will be able to deal with one council whose representatives cover every service from housing through to police and fire.
The district councillors will bring an extra dimension to the joint boards, because they will have sat through discussions on housing, education and social services. Therefore, when considering police, fire and transport, they will be able to relate to them what they know about the other services. For example, in Bradford the five councillors will be fully aware of the race relations initiative when they serve on the joint police board. Therefore, it is absurd to argue that the move is undemocratic. Far from it. It is highly democratic and it will make the joint boards more responsive to the public.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I shall try to be brief, although I wish to make some important points about the joint boards, costs and the conflict between the Home Office and the Department of the Environment about savings in the police and fire services as a result of the abolition of the metropolitan counties.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), representing the Police Federation, made what I thought was a good argument for keeping the metropolitan counties and directly elected police authorities. He argued that under the proposed abolition many services will be given to district councils but that because the police will not, district councils will demand responsibility for the police service as well. I have news for him. We sat in Committee on the Bill for hour after hour and we heard that not many services are being given to district councils. Most are being kept at county level with joint boards or trusts. In most cases the Minister will have reserve powers, as he will in respect of the police joint boards. He will be able to alter by order the representation from the district and the political complexion of the board, without an election.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Since the amendment standing in my name will not be called, I should like to make a point about democratic representation on the joint board. I support the Bill, but is the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) aware that in many authorities we do not get democratic representation? We get two seats, not three. In the Government's White Paper "Streamlining the Cities", they said specifically that minority or opposition parties which have three seats or more would be represented on authorities. Therefore, by saying that Rochdale will have only two seats on the joint board, including the police board, they are effectively denying for all time to opposition parties in that council, be they Labour, Liberal or Tory, the right to serve on the joint board.

Mr. Roberts: That is just one anomaly. The way the joint boards are made up gives political control to one party in every case, the magistrates' party, because they will be the only people who will have a majority. They will determine policy. It will be very political. The magistrates will be able to control what happens. The proposal that magistrates, who are supposed to adjudicate independently between the police who prosecute and citizens who are brought before police courts, should have the majority on joint boards and on running the police authority in their area is the height of foolishness. That will happen under the joint board proposal.
Of course the police are involved in politics. I oppose the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and I support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friends. If the Government wish to justify the abolition of the metropolitan counties and if they wish to have a police authority that is not democratically elected and accountable, they must give responsibility for the police to the district council, which will be democratically elected and accountable.
7.15 pm
There was nothing wrong with the old watch committee and the system whereby the bobby was on the beat and the local chief constable had grown up in the area and had probably married someone who lived in the locality. That system worked well, as will be evident from statistics that I shall quote in a moment.
Of course, the chief constable for Greater Manchester, Mr. Anderton, does not want a system that might break up his empire. Of course, he is against the possibility of the local watch committee being re-established because he, along with six other chief constables meeting jointly under the direction of the Home Secretary, runs what has become the equivalent of a state police force. He has a great deal of power and he is very political. All the chief constables are. Mr. Anderton has become a cult figure of the right because he makes so many political speeches. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds wants politics out of the police force, he should have a word with some of the chief constables whom he purports to represent and advise them to stop making political speeches.
Whether we like it or not, if police authorities are abolished in the metropolitan counties there will be a demand from the general public to councillors and MPs for the establishment of police monitoring committees in every district council in the metropolitan areas and in the London boroughs. In committee the only arguments we got from Conservative Members in favour of abolition were based on prejudice against black groups and against women's organisations because they are given grants by the GLC.
Conservative Members have the audacity to criticise police monitoring committees set up by local authorities, but there would not be a police force if local authorities had not developed the system in the days of the peelers. Policing is traditionally a local authority function. One of the greatest things about having lived in Britain for the past hundred years or so is that we have police forces that have been locally accountable and not a state police force which is a first step towards a police state.
In regard to expenditure on policing and the crime rate, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) has said that there will be no savings in the police service as a result of the Government's proposals; the Department of the Environment says that there will be savings. That contradiction may be accounted for by the fact that the savings the DOE is talking about are being made before abolition of the metropolitan counties because, for example, Merseyside county council is rate-capped. That is affecting the police service now. The rate cap is taking £16 million away from the police budget.
For 1984–85 the police budget in Merseyside is £103·8 million. That means that the police authority will lose 693 vehicles. The only alternative was to cut manpower, but the public want the bobby back on the beat. One way of achieving that is to get rid of motor cars. The police cannot drive round in them if they have not got them. They cannot be on the beat if they are playing in the police band. Of course, Conservative politicians and chief constables may like police bands but my voters, who want their communities properly policed, want to see the bobby on the beat.
Hon. Members may be amazed when they hear these statistics. In 1974 in the seven districts of Merseyside only 10 bobbies would have been on the beat at any one time because of the manpower problem. Since 1974 the number of police and vehicles has gone up by one fifth, the number of civilians employed by the police has gone up by a quarter, the police budget has increased by a quarter in real terms and recorded crime has increased by almost 50 per cent. A recent crime survey shows that three and a half times as many personal and property crimes take place as are reported.
Despite our being administered by the party of law and order, the crime wave continues to rise, even taking account of the increases in efficiency, vehicles, manpower and pay. If the police forces had still been controlled at local level by a local chief constable, accountable to a democratically elected watch committee sensitive to the needs of the community, the crime rate would be much lower. We must defeat this legislation and ensure that the police are controlled by a democratic committee directly elected at county level.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The debate on the amendments has provoked a fair discussion about the problem of the joint boards and cessation, with particular relevance to the police. In addition, one Opposition Member devoted his remarks to the fire service.
These aspects of the Bill had a substantial airing in Committee, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) acknowledged. It has been suggested that there would be less accountability to council if joint boards were established. Clause 40 requires councillors who serve on joint boards to report their activities to their councils. Therefore, the connection between joint boards and constituent councils will be strengthened. It may be greater than the existing connection. There will be an improvement, not a reduction, in the contact between the police authority, as exemplified in the joint board, and the councils.
Opposition Members were concerned mainly about obtaining what they called more democratic control over the police. They spoke not only about the reports that would be required if the amendment were passed, but about the possibility of a greater exercise of direct control over the police through appointments. There was a great deal of discussion in Committee about direct election. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and others made clear what their intention is at the end of the day.
The general concept of how policing should be handled in relation to local authorities' responsibilities is laid down in the 1964 Act, which provides for total operational independence for chief constables. That is at variance with some of the comments made in Committee.
The central issue in this group of amendments is the question of reports. A second issue is involved in the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend about cessation consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) argued against any prospect of a police joint board being broken up into constituent districts.
Fundamentally, the Bill is about powers being taken from the present structure of metropolitan counties and the GLC and brought back into the borough or district council structure. Therefore, it is not surprising that, as a matter of equity, there should be a provision in clause 41 for further power to be deferred to the boroughs in the general context of the principle of the Bill. In some cases—for example, transport undertakings — there is a realistic prospect that that might be a good thing to do, and something that has needed to be done for the district services.
On the question of the police and fire services, it has been and remains our firm policy not to encourage any break-up of police force areas. That is fundamental to the commitment we made at the outset of this legislation. We

recognise and respect the continuity that is crucial to the effective planning and efficiency of the modern police force.
In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, my right hon. and learned Friend said:
We made it clear … that no application would be entertained before the joint boards had been in operation for a reasonable time and that district councils would be required to satisfy me that they would administer the service more effectively and that provision in the rest of the metropolitan area or nationally would not be adversely affected. In assessing effectiveness I would of course have in mind both operational efficiency and cost.
That commitment was not just to examine an individual case that a district might seek to make, but the consequences of that case on adjacent authorities and nationally. It would be rare that such a case would be found beneficial to the operational efficiency of a police force.
That statement is strengthened by the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend, which requires that my right hon. and learned Friend or my right hon. Friend should consult the relevant joint authority, its constituent councils and any other authority that appeared to be affected before making an order under the clause. That is a further strengthening of the legislation and it deals with the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds that this clause would provide an easy route out for district councils. I hope that we have strengthened the view that there should not be an easy way in which cessation could take place for police services.
The Opposition amendments are an attempt to delay matters. They require that a report should be presented to the House. We do not believe that is necessary. There has been enough reporting and discussion. What is required now is a clear statement of where we stand under the powers available in clause 41. If amendment No. 17 found favour with the House, the position would be strengthened even more. There would be a requirement for statements to be made and consultations to be held. That would ensure that there was no easy way out that would allow cessation to take place. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) spoke about the fire service, and I have taken his points on board. He wanted to get on record the views of the Fire Brigades Union about the clause. He knows that the Bill will not seriously threaten the provision of fire services in London or anywhere else. Their operational standards must be maintained. The responsibilities of chief fire officers to designate areas to ensure that standards are applied will remain. I hope that he recognises that there are no grounds for the fear that he has expressed about the Bill's provisions.
I advise the House to reject the Opposition amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds will not seek to press his amendment in the light of the assurances that I have given.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 85, in page 16, line 15, at end insert—
'(2) The provisions of this section and of sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 of this Act shall not have effect until the Secretary of State for the Home Department has reported to Parliament on the arrangements he proposes to ensure that the police, fire and civil emergency planning functions in each metropolitan county or Greater London as the case may be are discharged no less economically, efficiently and effectively under the provisions of this Part of this Act.'.—[Mr. Soleyj

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 301.

Division No. 172]
[7.29 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Alton, David
Haynes, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Ashton, Joe
Home Robertson, John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Howells, Geraint


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hoyle, Douglas


Barnett, Guy
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Benn, Tony
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bermingham, Gerald
Janner, Hon Greville


Bidwell, Sydney
John, Brynmor


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lamond, James


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Leighton, Ronald


Buchan, Norman
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Caborn, Richard
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Litherland, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Loyden, Edward


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McCartney, Hugh


Cartwright, John
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clarke, Thomas
McKelvey, William


Clay, Robert
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McNamara, Kevin


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Madden, Max


Cohen, Harry
Marek, Dr John


Coleman, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Conlan, Bernard
Maxton, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Meacher, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Michie, William


Cowans, Harry
Mikardo, Ian


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Craigen, J. M.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Crowther, Stan
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dalyell, Tam
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Nellist, David


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
O'Brien, William


Deakins, Eric
O'Neill, Martin


Dixon, Donald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dobson, Frank
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dormand, Jack
Park, George


Dubs, Alfred
Parry, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pendry, Tom


Eadie, Alex
Pike, Peter


Eastham, Ken
Randall, Stuart


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Redmond, M.


Ellis, Raymond
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Ewing, Harry
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Fatchett, Derek
Robertson, George


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Rooker, J. W.


Fisher, Mark
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Flannery, Martin
Rowlands, Ted


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Forrester, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Foster, Derek
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Foulkes, George
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Freud, Clement
Snape, Peter


Garrett, W. E.
Soley, Clive


Godman, Dr Norman
Spearing, Nigel


Gould, Bryan
Straw, Jack





Tinn, James
Winnick, David


Torney, Tom
Woodall, Alec


Wainwright, R.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Weetch, Ken
Mr. James Hamilton and


Williams, Rt Hon A.
Mr. Ray Powell.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Amess, David
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Ancram, Michael
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Tom
Farr, Sir John


Ashby, David
Favell, Anthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fletcher, Alexander


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Beggs, Roy
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Marcus


Bendall, Vivian
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, John
Galley, Roy


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Body, Richard
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gow, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brinton, Tim
Greenway, Harry


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gregory, Conal


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Browne, John
Grist, Ian


Bruinvels, Peter
Ground, Patrick


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Grylls, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Gummer, John Selwyn


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Hon Adam
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, John


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Harvey, Robert


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Chapman, Sydney
Hawksley, Warren


Chope, Christopher
Hayhoe, Barney


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Henderson, Barry


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hickmet, Richard


Clegg, Sir Walter
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cockeram, Eric
Hill, James


Colvin, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Simon
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cope, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Couchman, James
Holt, Richard


Cranborne, Viscount
Howard, Michael


Crouch, David
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Dorrell, Stephen
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dunn, Robert
Hunter, Andrew


Durant, Tony
Irving, Charles


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Jackson, Robert


Eggar, Tim
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Emery, Sir Peter
Jessel, Toby


Evennett, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey






Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Powley, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Raffan, Keith


Key, Robert
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Renton, Tim


Knowles, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Lamont, Norman
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Latham, Michael
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rost, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rowe, Andrew


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lightbown, David
Ryder, Richard


Lilley, Peter
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lord, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McCusker, Harold
Shersby, Michael


Macfarlane, Neil
Silvester, Fred


MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Skeet, T. H. H.


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Maclean, David John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McQuarrie, Albert
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Madel. David
Speller, Tony


Major, John
Spence, John


Malins, Humfrey
Spencer, Derek


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Maples, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marlow, Antony
Squire, Robin


Maude, Hon Francis
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Merchant, Piers
Stokes, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Sumberg, David


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Roger
Terlezki, Stefan


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moore, John
Thurnham, Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Trippier, David


Murphy, Christopher
Trotter, Neville


Neale, Gerrard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Needham, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Tony
Waddington, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Norris, Steven
Waldegrave, Hon William


Onslow, Cranley
Walden, George


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Osborn, Sir John
Waller, Gary


Ottaway, Richard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Watson, John


Parris, Matthew
Watts, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitfield, John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Whitney, Raymond


Pollock, Alexander
Wood, Timothy


Portillo, Michael
Yeo, Tim





Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Carol Mather and



Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Tellers for the Noes:

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after half:past Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [11 February] and the Resolutions yesterday, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 28

NUMBER OF MEMBERS

Amendments made:
No. 14, in page 18, line 35, after `(2)', insert
`Subject to subsection (3) below,'.
No. 15, in page 18, line 38, leave out 'but' and insert—
'(3) In making any alteration in the number of members to be appointed to a joint authority by any of its constituent councils the Secretary of State shall have regard to the number of local government electors in the areas of those councils respectively; and'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 41

REORGANISATION OF FUNCTIONS

Amendments made:
No. 16, in page 25, line 15, at end insert
`or, as respects any functions exercisable by a metropolitan county passenger transport authority otherwise than by virtue of section 38 above, the exclusion of the council of any such district from the authority's constituent councils'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
No. 17, in page 25, line 42, at end insert—
'(3) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall consult each of the following bodies which appears to him to be affected by the order, that is to say, any police, fire or passenger transport authority, the council of a county, district or London borough and the Common Council.'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 47

GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS

Amendment made:
No. 18, in page 28. line 28, leave out clause 47.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 51

COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF OFFICE OR DIMINUTION OF EMOLUMENTS

Mr. Speaker: We now come to amendment No. 19 and those amendments grouped with it.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that the operation of the guillotine now means that the whole of the discussion on clause 43 and the attendant amendments is excluded absolutely, which means that the House will have had no opportunity to discuss the future of the arts? There has been major controversy about those matters, and many hon. Members have received representations from the Pedestrian Association, the Sports Council, and the Heath and Old Hampstead Society. Will you confirm that


all those matters are excluded because of the guillotine, and that it will not be possible to return to them before Third Reading?

Mr. Speaker: That is indeed the case. I can only suggest that the right hon. Gentleman could raise some of those matters on Third Reading.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 34, line 22, leave out 'period' and insert 'fixed term'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 20, 23, 24 and 67.

Mr. Baker: I heard the protest of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) about the fact that debate has been curtailed on the matters that were of interest to him. I must remind the House that as Leader of the House he moved five guillotines in one day.

Mr. Foot: I am happy to recall those events. All the measures were excellent. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that a measure with major constitutional changes was never introduced in that manner. The right hon. Gentleman should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

Mr. Baker: It only goes to show that views change when positions in the House change. On Second Reading we had two days of debate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems that we are moving away from the debate. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to speak to the amendment.

Mr. Baker: I shall resist the temptation to stray.
This group of amendments is intended to clarify the provisions of clause 57. Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are, respectively, consequential amendments to clauses 51 and 53. In particular, amendment No. 19 makes it clear that subsection 51(4) relates to fixed term contracts. Hon. Members and people outside the House have queried that point.
The substantive amendments relate to clause 57. They are intended to clarify its provisions. They do so by specifying more closely the payments that the residuary body will make, and by making it clear that GLC or MCC staff in post at abolition will be treated as if they had been made redundant by their employer. This will place beyond any possible doubt their eligibility for a redundancy payment, subject to their meeting the other criteria laid down in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The matter was raised in Committee, and this clarifies it and protects workers in that position.
7.45 pm
I shall now deal with redundancy provisions, as this is the only occasion when we can touch on them. I made it clear that we hoped that redundancies would be kept to a minimum. That is possible only if there is co-operation by the staff associations and the various unions. I was frequently asked in Committee about the future work of certain common specialist services. It may be appropriate to mention the central purchasing unit. I said that its future was in the hands of successor authorities but that my Department would use its good offices in considering how worthwhile services could be maintained, if there was a demand for it. Clearly, there is a general interest in the provision of a central purchasing service, probably under

the aegis of the Inner London education authority. However, equally, other practical arrangements are being considered. The Crown suppliers could provide similar services.
The new ILEA will need to make its own purchasing arrangements. It could well be in its interests to supply others, including London boroughs which have been using the unit. It will take some time for those authorities to set up other purchasing arrangements, and they will soon need to start taking decisions. The Government hope that ILEA will open discussions with them as soon as possible in the interests of the staff concerned and before the viability of the present unit comes into question. My Department and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science continue to stand ready to use their good offices to that good end.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am pleased to see that the Minister at last recognises the great value of the GLC's central supply service. It has provided a valuable service, not only to Labour authorities, but to Conservative authorities which want good value for their rates money. The Minister said that he wants redundancies to be limited. How can he say that when one of the stated intentions of the Bill is to bring about at least 9,000 redundancies? What does he want — 9,000 redundancies, 7,000 redundancies, or none?

Mr. Baker: It is not a question of my wanting a specific number of redundancies. As the hon. Gentleman has followed these matters closely in Committee, is knowledgeable about them, and is involved in the GLC, he knows that it will be up to the successor authortities to determine their own staffing requirements for all the devolved functions. They must decide how to do that. I know that Conservative boroughs in London are doing that, but I do not know whether Labour boroughs are. The hon. Gentleman may have better information about that than I do. It would be sensible for all of them to do that, and to talk to the staff commission. I am pleased that the GLC's staff association wrote to us this month to thank us for the booklet that we sent it, and attached some questions, generally about the legal branch staff of the GLC, and contracts of employment. One of my officials has replied to that list of inquiries.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence to ensure that there will be co-operation. I have no doubt that it is in the interests of GLC staff that there should be more co-operation.

Mr. Banks: I made this point in Committee and I shall repeat it now. The GLC has never attempted to prevent the dissemination of circulars from the staff commission to the staff, in the sense that they are sent to the trade unions, which are independent and affiliated to the Trades Union Congress. It is entirely within their area of responsibility to decide whether they then circulate the circulars to their members. The GLC cannot and would not intervene in any way whatsoever.

Mr. Baker: I understand that, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will advise the union officers and the shop stewards in the GLC to pass the information to their members. That is happening outside London, and I shall say something about it later, possibly on Third Reading. I repeat that it is in the interests of the staff that discussions and co-operation should start as soon as possible.

Mr. Harry Cowanss: I appreciate that the Minister is trying to clarify the position—there was much discussion of this matter in Committee—but I am afraid that many matters have still not been clarified. The words "before the abolition date" cause some problems, because all sorts of things could happen. The magic date of 2 March 1984 also raises problems. For example, someone who had worked there for some time but who renegotiated his contract after 2 March might be adversely affected. Will he forfeit his cover under the clause? As the Minister knows, many people change jobs and renegotiate their contracts. How will they be affected by the inclusion of this magic date?
Another case that has been raised is that of a person who is made redundant two to three weeks or a month before the abolition date, but who has not received his redundancy payment by the abolition date. It would seem to be reasonable for the Minister to consider the matter.
Amendment No. 67 also causes anxiety, because, after the Bill leaves the House, it becomes open to interpretation. The House will wish to get the wording right so that the Act can be interpreted only as the House wishes it to be interpreted. Amendment No. 67 refers to "an amount". We are talking about compensation, and the Minister will know that it takes many forms, including redundancy payments, enhancements, pensions and lump sums. The words "an amount" may mean the lumping together of all those forms of compensation. If that is not the intention, the Minister owes it to the House and certainly to those outside to clarify the position. As at present drafted, the clause could be interpreted in that way.
The Bill has been drafted shoddily. I appreciate that the Minister is trying to put it right, but many points still need clarification. I hope that if there is any possibility of misinterpretation, the clause will be redrafted more tightly in another, place to ensure that none of the staff suffers because of the Bill.
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks): the body of the Minister's case on cost savings was the fact that there would be redundancies. I believe that the Minister does not want them, but his Bill will inevitably create them. Therefore, it is even more vital that he tightens the clause to ensure that people do not suffer.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: May I briefly answer some of the questions which the hon. Gentleman asked. New contracts made after 2 March will be caught by the clause. If a contract made before 2 March is varied, the clause does not exclude compensation payments which were in the contract at that date. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the obligation to give redundancy payments to staff who might become redundant two or three weeks before abolition. I shall check on this, but I am sure that if the obligation is not fulfilled, it will pass to and be paid for by the residuary body.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a few other questions, and the best that I can do is to write to him. He was most helpful in Committee on this admittedly complicated and arcane provision. He asked about the definition of the word "amount". It is clearly defined in amendment No. 67, but I shall check on that and on the other points that he raised.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53

OFFERS OF EMPLOYMENT BY SUCCESSOR AUTHORITIES

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 36, line 8 leave out `(a)'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Schedule 13

RESIDUARY BODIES

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 144, line 8, at end insert—

'Access to documents of councils

7A. — (1) Any person authorised in that behalf by the London Residuary Body or the residuary body established for a county shall be entitled on producing, if so required, evidence of his authority—

(a) at all reasonable times to inspect and make copies of any document belonging to or under the control of the Greater London Council or the council of that county, as the case may be; and
(b) to require copies of any such document to be delivered to him.

(2) Any person have custody of any such document who without reasonable excuse—

(a) obstructs a person in the exercise of his rights under sub-paragraph (1) above; or
(b) refuses or fails to comply with any requirement imposed under that sub-paragraph,

shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the third level on the standard scale and to an additional fine not exceeding £40 for each day on which the offence continues after conviction thereof.

(3) References in this paragraph to copies of a document include references to copies of any part of it.

(4) In this paragraph "document" includes any record of information and, where the record is not in legible form, the rights conferred by sub-paragraph (1) above include the right to require the information to be made available in legible form for inspection or copying and to require copies of it in that form to be delivered.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 55 and 56.

Mr. Baker: In the period before abolition day, the residuary bodies will have to acquire a close working knowledge of the authorities whose residual affairs they will take over. Without that knowledge, they will be unable to make detailed preparations for the responsibilities this Bill will lay on them, and without such knowledge they could not ensure that important activities such as computer systems, pensions payments, and payments to external creditors continue without interruption.
I regret to say that there are still those in some unions and in some expiring authorities who consider that they can disrupt such preparations after the Royal Assent to the Bill. Amendment No. 54 should make it clear to all concerned that the residuary bodies will have every right to get to grips beforehand with the task they will inherit on abolition day.
The amendment will have a further effect. In the run-up to abolition, GLC and MCC employees will, as a matter of professional pride, be working towards a smooth handover of services. I am confident that they will do that. Moreover, some of them could hold dual appointments where their current work is to go to a residuary body. In such cases, this measure will protect staff from any improper pressure to withhold vital information from the residuary bodies.
Amendment Nos. 55 and 56 make a minor adjustment to the powers of residuary bodies. They enable the bodies to enter into agency agreements with central Government for the discharge of functions. This is a necessary complement to their general role of facilitating the transition to the new structure.

Mr. Cowans: This is once again an example of the Secretary of State taking draconian powers without recourse to the House. I remind the Minister that no such power was dreamt of during the passage of the Local Government Act 1972. The power will entitle officers appointed by the Secretary of State, answerable not to Parliament but only to him, to demand information, much of which may be confidential. Indeed, it could relate to the pension rights of members of an elected body.
Moreover, through the residuary body, the Secretary of State will transfer all those services to himself. One can visualise how those services will be used. It is an unnecessary provision; indeed, it is government by bludgeon. The Secretary of State cannot argue the case and obtain the co-operation of the staff, so he takes everything to himself. The provision is also one-sided, because the penalties for failure to supply information do not take into account staff being ill or having to conduct other extremely important work. They must do as they are told, and, if anything gets in the way, they will have to pay considerable fines.
The amendment also means that the Secretary of State — I am sure that he will enjoy this — will become a public body. While the draconian powers that he has unto himself now may make him look like a divine body, he does not need to become a public body as well. There is a bare-faced, unnecessary transfer of power and services to the Secretary of State. Here he is—judge, jury and executioner. Through this amendment he seeks to make that legal. It is nonsense.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 55, in page 144, leave out line 44.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 57

REDUNDANCY AND COMPENSATION PAYMENTS

8 pm

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 38, line 40, leave out subsection (1).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 27.

Mr. Baker: During the Standing Committee's consideration of the Bill, Labour Members—notably the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—were concerned that clause 51(5) did not preserve the statutory rights of the GLC or MCC employees against their employers that might arise or already have arisen out of actions before abolition. The right to compensation for unfair dismissal is an example of this kind of right.
As I explained then, clause 51 does not affect such rights. I undertook to consider whether the drafting of clauses 57 and 60 might unintentionally have extinguished those rights. This indeed was the case, and this group of amendments is intended to restore those rights to former

GLC and MCC staff after abolition. Its effect is to ensure that the residuary bodies can inherit the GLC's or MCCs' liabilities—and rights—arising under or in respect of contracts of employment. This answers the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans). The latter liabilities include any liabilities in respect of the statutory rights of staff such as Labour Members raised in Committee.
However, the amendment to clause 60(3) has a wider effect. It includes any vicarious liabilities of the employer for the torts of his employees—something which I know has been concerning district surveyors. In addition, the liabilities which this amendment passes to residuary bodies include the making of statutory redundancy payments to former GLC or MCC staff made redundant but not paid before abolition.

Mr. Straw: Do I understand the Minister to be saying that if there is a liability arising in respect of a tortious act by a district surveyor now, that liability will be inherited by the residual body, not the successor councils?

Mr. Baker: That is the position.
These are essentially technical amendments to improve the drafting of the Bill. Several points were raised in Committee at which I undertook to look. I have fulfilled that obligation.

Mr. Straw: We are grateful to the Minister for introducing these amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 23, in page 39, line 11, leave out from 'date' to end of line 17.
No. 24, in page 39, line 19, leave out '(a)'.
No. 67, in page 39, line 25, at end insert—
'(4) Any person who immediately before the abolition date is in the service of the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council under a contract of employment made before 2nd March 1984 and who is not designated for the purposes of section 50 above shall be entitled to receive from the appropriate residuary body—
(a) if the contract provided for his employment for a fixed term extending beyond that date without any provision for its prior termination by that council, an amount equal to any damages which he would have been entitled to recover from that council if it had not been abolished but had dismissed him immediately before that date; or
(b) if the contract (whether or not for a fixed term) provided for its termination by that council on payment of compensation for loss of employment, an amount equal to the compensation which he would have been entiled to receive from that council if it had not been abolished but had terminated the contract immediately before that date.
(5) In paragraph (b) of subsection (4) above "compensation for loss of employment" does not include any payment to be made under the contract in lieu of notice; and where the amount of compensation payable under a contract differs according to the reasons for its termination the amount payable under that paragraph shall be determined on the assumption that the contract was terminated by reason of redundancy within the meaning of the said Act of 1978:.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 58

PAYMENT OF PENSIONS

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 40, line 11, after 'service', insert ', death, injury or disease'.
This is a technical amendment widening the definition of pension in subsection (5). Subsection (2) provides for the transfer to the appropriate residuary body of certain continuing pension liabilities of the GLC and the MCCs. The definition of pension in subsection (5) does not include compensation and allowances paid in cases of death, injury or disease resulting from employment. The amendment ensures that these continuing liabilities would be included in the transfer of pension liabilities to the residuary bodies.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 60

CUSTODY OF RESIDUARY PROPERTY ETC

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 41, line 17, leave out from 'section' to end of line 21 and insert 'shall not be construed as continuing in force any contract of employment made by the Greater London Council or a metropolitan county council but the rights and liabilities to which this section applies shall include any rights and liabilities attributable to anything done or omitted under or in respect of such a contract before the abolition date except any liability to make a payment prohibited by section 51(2) above.'. — [Sir George Young.]

Clause 64

DISCHARGE OF CERTAIN RESIDUARY FUNCTIONS BY DESIGNATED COUNCILS

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 44, line 5, leave out from 'whereby' to end of line 8 and insert
'any rights, liabilities, property or functions which by virtue of section 56, 58 or 59 above would otherwise be vested in or fall to be discharged by the residuary body established for that county are vested in or discharged by one of those councils (a "designated council") instead of that body.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31.

Mr. Baker: These are technical amendments. Amendment No. 28 makes it clear that the matters which may be passed by order to a district council under this clause include rights, liabilities and property covered by clauses 56, 58 and 59 as well as functions. The other amendments are simply drafting ones.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 29, in page 44, line 12, leave out from first 'the' to second 'to' in line 13 and insert 'designated council'.
No. 30, in page 44, line 19, leave out from 'to' to `liabilities' in line 21 and insert
'section 56, impose on the designated council'.
No. 31, in page 44, line 24, leave out 'under' and insert `falling to be discharged by virtue of'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 78

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO BLOCK GRANT

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 53, line 5, at end insert—
'(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of section 3 of the Rates Act 1984 the principles in accordance with which the Secretary of State exercises his power under that section to determine a level for the total expenditure of a relevant authority in the year beginning with the abolition date may differ from those applied by him in the case of any other relevant authority.'.
This amendment fills a gap in the application of the Rates Act to lower-tier authorities taking transferred functions which are selected for rate limitation for 1986–87.
We have always recognised that in allocating the abolished authorities' spending among successor bodies for rate support grant purposes generally, we cannot rely on any simple indicator such as the successor authorities' present expenditure or population. For example, in the case of the costs of the GLC's transferred housing stock we clearly must take into account that some boroughs took very much larger transfers than others. That is why clause 78(2) confers power, for one year only, to make adjustments to successor authorities' targets without regard to general principles. I believe that that is supported by both sides of the House.
The same arguments apply to the expenditure levels which have to be set for successor authorities selected for rate limitation. Without this amendment, we could face the situation where it was obvious that one selected authority needed to spend more than another on transferred functions, but we could not allow for this because there would be no general principle to describe it. I should stress that we shall still have to apply principles to each authority, which will have to be reasonable. We shall have to justify the reasonableness; we cannot pluck figures out of the air.
I commend the amendment to the House as a sensible precaution to ensure that we can set reasonable expenditure levels that take proper account of the costs of transferred functions.

Mr. Straw: The Minister said that the Secretary of State would have to apply principles in relation to each authority and to act reasonably. Will those principles be published, because in this case the Government will be acting on an authority-by-authority basis? The Minister knows that problems arose because some of the yardsticks that the Government were following were not published until late in the day and it was recognised that that was a mistake, as they were published in the end, and simply added to the mutual suspicion that had built up.
Applying principles across the board is one thing. We can object to principles, and often do so, but there is rough justice as between one authority and another. However, where different principles apply to different authorities, it is of crucial importance that they should be published, so that those authorities and others can judge whether the Secretary of State has acted fairly. I should be glad if the Minister would reply on that point.

Mr. Tony Banks: This may be the only opportunity to put in a few other questions that the Minister may be able to answer. The first concerns rate limitation for certain successor bodies. It is a pity that neither the Minister nor the Secretary of State suggested that there should he rate limitation on London Regional Transport. I note that that successor body, in anticipation of abolition, is about to put up its fares and make its precept at whatever level it wishes. Can the Minister guarantee that the level of contribution of each of the London boroughs will be matched by a similar amount of GREA in respect of whatever they are required to pay to the London residuary body?
Can the Minister assure us that the London boroughs will not attract block grant penalties as a result of


overspending by the residuary body? Will he remove any doubts that Labour Members and boroughs may have by making the residuary body responsible for its block grant and for any penalties that might be attributable to it?
Will the levy of the residuary body, or of any of the successor bodies, appear as a separate item on the rate demand? No doubt would exist on that point if it were a precept instead of a levy.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The answer to the last question asked by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is that the levy from the residuary body will have to be determined by December of this year for the following year. That is one reason why the residuary body will have to be appointed in shadow form relatively soon. It will have to take up its preparatory planning responsibilities from 1 September this year and determine the levy.
We do not envisage the residuary body's levy appearing, as it were, as a separate item in the make-up of the rate demand. That will be a matter for the individual local authority to determine, though it will probably want to itemise it separately so as to show its ratepayers the element that comes from the residuary body.
To the extent that I followed the hon. Gentleman's question about penalties and targets, I have explained that the clause allows us to vary targets. Under clause 78, the Secretary of State can vary targets to take into account a variety of matters. That is on the assumption that targets will still operate in 1986–87. I explained in Committee that I am still actively pursuing the matter at various meetings. I emphasise that the change to which I am referring will be transitional and for one year only. Ministers are not absolved from exercising their powers reasonably.

Mr. Tony Banks: Reasonably?

Mr. Baker: We have always acted reasonably, as the various court cases show. When the GLC and ILEA take us to court, we win time and again because the court vindicates us in view of the reasonable way in which the Secretary of State for the Environment exercises his judgment.
We have had a remarkable victory this week in cases which the GLC and the ILEA brought. I do not know how much they have cost their ratepayers and whether they have been awarded our costs as well. The GLC does not seem to think that any week passes well without taking action against my Department.

Mr. Tony Banks: You ain't seen nothing yet.

Mr. Baker: That statement comes from the chairman-elect. I cannot wait until he is in his frock coat, tails and pinstripes, presiding over the GLC, to see what he proposes to pass through.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) asked if I would publish the principles as they apply to different authorities. I shall examine that point, but I cannot give an undertaking on it now because it pertains to the whole regime of rate capping and the powers and responsibilities we have under the Rates Act.

Mr. Straw: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would be difficult for anybody to judge whether the Secretary of State had acted reasonably if the principles on which he had acted were not made available?

Mr. Baker: I do not necessarily accept that, because this year, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have not made the considerations available publicly. Under the Rates Act, an obligation was placed on rate-limited authorities to argue about expenditure levels, but none of them did so. In addition, they had the right to discuss actual rate levels. That is the way in which the legislation is drafted. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's request, but I do not intend to make a definitive statement about it tonight.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 14

NEW AUTHORITIES: APPLICATION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY PROVISIONS

Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 150, leave out lines 19 to 23.

Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I suggest that it is convenient for the House to discuss at the same time amendment No. 58.

Sir George Young: These are technical amendments to schedule 14, which extends to the new authorities the appropriate powers currently available to local authorities generally.
Amendment No. 57 has the effect of no longer extending to the new ILEA and the metropolitan county PTAs the provisions of section 240 of the Local Government Act 1972 as regards expenses in respect of provisional orders. That extension had been intended to cope with circumstances where those authorities wished compulsorily to purchase land belonging to a local authority or statutory undertaker, common and or open space. The appropriate way forward in such circumstances, however, would be not by provisional orders but by special parliamentary procedure. Extension to those authorities of the arrangements for provisional orders is therefore unnecessary.
Amendment No. 58 corrects a typographical error. The reference to be inserted into the Housing Act 1980 is, of course, to this Bill, once enacted: the "Local" not the "London" Government Act 1985.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 58, in page 155, line 1, leave out 'London' and insert 'Local'.—[Sir George Young.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 87

GLC HOUSING TRANSFER ORDERS AND NOMINATION RIGHTS

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 59, line 8, after 'order' insert
'and after the publication of a report by the Secretary of State setting out arrangements after the abolition date in relation to housing functions exercised before that date by the Greater London Council, and in particular for the continuation of housing mobility in London, the renovation of former GLC estates, the future of Thamesmead, and the effect of abolition on holders of former GLC mortgages, and the distribution of capital receipts.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 37, in page 59, line 13, after 'date' insert


'provided that no such order shall prejudice the programme to renovate housing accommodation transferred under the said section 23 or shall result in any net additional revenue cost to the council of any London borough.'.
No. 101, in page 59, leave out line 20 and insert—
'(c) substitute for a liability to carry out works by the Greater London Council an equal liability on the Secretary of State or the London Residuary Body.'.
No. 102, in page 59, line 8, leave out clause 87.

Mr. Fraser: We now discuss in a matter of minutes the destruction of the greatest house-building authority in Britain today. We cannot debate the general, house construction, responsibilities of the GLC. Anybody who considers the overall problem of housing in London will agree that the capital has an overwhelming need for a strategic housing authority. I shall concentrate on the restricted number of issues contained in the amendments.
I wish to consider, first, the GLC homes which were transferred to the London boroughs. All told, 155,000 houses were transferred, most of them voluntarily. By 1981, eight London boroughs refused to transfer houses from the GLC—they refused to take 54,000 homes—and they made that decision for good reason.
Those boroughs knew that they could not take on the responsibility for the estates, some of them in my constituency. The houses concerned were in a poor state at the time and they knew that they could not take on the responsibility, financially or physically, unless they received help from the GLC. They knew that many of the estates which they had refused to take over were not assets but liabilities.
They were right because they were aware of the problems that taking over the GLC estates would create —many of the estates were in housing—stress areas and they were prudent to hold out against a voluntary transfer because they believed that such a transfer could easily bankrupt their housing revenue accounts. They held out, they negotiated and, at the end of the day, they did a deal. The deal was agreed between the boroughs and the GLC, and was eventually blessed by the Government.
The contents of the deal were fourfold. First, every home that was to be transferred to a London borough—one of the eight boroughs — would be improved to improvement grant standard under the Housing Act 1974, Thus, they were assured that the homes would be put into a modern and improved state.
Secondly, they sought a completion date for that obligation of 1992. Thirdly, they obtained the promise that the capital that was needed to fund those improvements would be provided by the GLC. That amounted, including the houses that were voluntarily transferred, to an obligation of about £1 billion. Fourthly, they obtained a guarantee that the deficit — the revenue deficit on running the transferred housing, which amounted to about £65 million a year—would also be funded by the GLC.
They were were right to hold out for all those conditions because the GLC, with its resources taken from the whole of London, could muster the revenue necessary to enable the transferee boroughs to carry out their responsibilities. It was appreciated that each borough could not individually guarantee renovation if left alone to do the work. It was accepted that, without that agreement, the authorities would be under an intolerable strain, not just in respect of the tenants of the estates that they were taking over but for their existing housing stock.
Over 2,000 dwellings were taken over in my constituency of Lambeth. It was known that intolerable strains would be placed on housing departments if the guarantees were not secured. At the end of the day, the authorities had the stock and a 10-year guarantee. It is wise for a purchaser, as it were, to obtain a 10-year guarantee on what he is taking over. Accompanying the stock and the guarantee was a fund of £1 billion to pay for improvements, which was extended to include voluntary arrangements. The deal was agreed between the boroughs and the GLC. Indeed, it was signed, sealed, delivered and legislated upon.
The Government are proposing a breach of the sanctity of the contract which was entered into between the boroughs and the GLC. Secondly, the Bill will breach the sanctity of the legislative blessing which was given to the arrangements which I have described. Thirdly, the Bill involves a breach of the sanctity of arrangements reached between local authorities and an interference in the way in which the sanctity of someone's home can be guaranteed from the funds provided by local authorities. The deal was attractive but now it is inconvenient to its sponsor and it is to be snuffed out. In a sense, the Minister is performing the legislative equivalent of someone who drowns kittens. What was originally attractive has become inconvenient and must be snuffed out. This means an abandonment of obligations.
There has been an outcry from tenants associations throughout London. Many of them lobbied the House of Commons last month and London Members of all political parties asked to see the Minister. The Minister refused to meet them on the issue, but he allowed them about 20 minutes to discuss the matter towards the end of the Bill's consideration in Committee. He wrote to me and part of his letter read:
I appreciate that there has some concern on the point.
That is an underestimate. He wrote that in his opinion the concern was "misguided". The letter continued:
After abolition,"—
the letter was written by the Minister for Housing and Construction—
the Boroughs will become responsible for whatever renovation and repair works … they consider necessary, in the same way that they are already responsible for dwellings which they originally provided for themselves.
The boroughs know that. They know that they will be responsible in the same way that they are responsible for their existing housing stock. That is why they resisted the transfer.
The letter states that the boroughs will get
the 'top slice' of London's HIP now allocated to the GLC along with all the rest of the capital's HIP allocation.
The letter adds:
Future allocations will take particular account of liabilities inherited from the GLC.
We are not allowed to comment on the truthfulness of Ministers but if the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Construction were called Pinocchio, their noses would have grown a good deal over the past couple of years. Whenever they have made forecasts about the money to be provided from capital receipts and housing investment programmes, and every time they have given any kind of assurance or denial that there will be a moratorium — the same can be said of the occasions when they have denied that there will be a cut in housing


capital allocations—they have been proved wrong. The Opposition, who have accused them of wanting to cut in future, have turned out to be right.
We do not believe that the Government will provide the housing investment which is necessary or reallocate capital receipts from the assets of the GLC to make good the promise which was given. To transfer housing to the boroughs without transferring the obligations which were solemnly accepted in statutory instruments means that the obligations are likely to be abandoned, which will cause the virtual bankruptcy of some local authority housing departments. A commitment was entered into and now the Government intend to abandon it. There will be little chance for anyone to complain about these consequences once the Bill has been enacted. This will be a serious breach of an obligation and we believe it to be financial irresponsibility as well.
The eight boroughs which held out for the guarantees and conditions which they eventually secured knew what they were taking on. They held out for a statutory guarantee and that is to be removed from them. The least that the Government could do would be to accept the amendment to restore the guarantees and the sanctity of the agreements which were reached in 1981 and 1982.
The Greater London mobility scheme arranges about 6,000 moves a year in London. For many tenants there is no possibility of mobility from one part of the capital to another — this includes the elderly and disabled who want to move outside London or to the seaside—unless it is provided by local authorities under mobility schemes. The campaign for homes in central London has underlined the hopelessness of many who have rented accommodation in London. That is the position unless they have a chance to move into rented accommodation in some other part of the capital or outside the capital.
I accept that the Minister has conceded a statutory scheme and provided for more generous nomination rights. We know that because the information was contained in a letter. This is not legislation by debate in Parliament. Instead, it is the enactment of legislation by telex, letter or press release. A letter was delivered—part of it was inaccurate and it was corrected later—to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). That is no way to legislate for the serious housing problems of Londoners. However, the Minister has made some concessions, which are revealed in the letter.
The hon. Member has introduced some amendments, but we want to know why the Government are arrogating to themselves the function of running the Greater London mobility scheme and the meaning behind the amendments which the Government are introducing, which will introduce restrictions. The scheme should be expanded and not restricted. There should be a more generous allocation available to those who want to move from one part of London to another.
What is the future of Thamesmead, which was a brave and bold experiment on the part of the GLC? It was constructed, often on reclaimed land, in Greenwich and Bexley and it has provided thousands of homes. Viability is still at issue in some parts of Thamesmead. We want to know from the Government the nature of their long-term plans for the future of Thamesmead. We do not want to be put off by being told that Thamesmead will be transferred in the meantime to the residuary body.
An enormous sum is locked up in the GLC in mortgages which have been given to individuals to purchase their houses with GLC mortgages. A great deal is tied up in capital receipts. It is not good enough for the Government to say that the money will be allocated pro rata to the boroughs according to their housing investment programme or rateable values. The capital receipts and the other assets which are available could be used for housing purposes. They should be allocated and concentrated where there is a need for housing. They should be allocated and concentrated in areas where the GLC had a responsibility, a responsibility which is being abrogated in the Bill. It is not good enough to allow some of the money to be given to boroughs such as Ealing, which will take the money and do nothing with it. They will take the money but will redirect the homeless to other parts of the capital.
London's housing problems are far too serious to enable us to accept the Bill. The problems amount to a scandal. We have the most expensive bed-and-breakfast farce in Europe. There are about 250,000 on waiting lists in London and 2,000 are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Some of these people are in inner London and the cost of providing them with bed-and-breakfast accommodation is about £20,000 a year. That sum is being spent to keep them in sordid and dangerous accommodation. Some of the homeless are suffering from malnutrition and disease. Some of them even suffer the penalty of death because of their homelessness. The proposals in the Bill are damaging and irrelevant to London's housing. The least that the Government could do would be to accept the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Under-Secretary of State will know that if he continues to defend his Government's proposals he continues a most disreputable approach to thousands of residents of this capital city. He will remember that one of his departmental predecessors—the present Secretary of State for Defence—said that the order entitled people, when their properties were transferred from GLC ownership to borough ownership, to look to the GLC to make sure that within ten years of the transfer their properties were brought up to an acceptable standard. That statement is contained in the Official Report. The order was part of a package deal agreed by the Government, the GLC and the boroughs, and the Government propose to do away with it—for no better reason than that they are unwilling to do what any of these amendments would permit — to transfer the obligation to successor authorities, even if the Government go ahead and abolish the GLC.
8.30 pm
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) represents Lambeth, the borough next to mine. My borough of Southwark contains the highest number of properties owned by the GLC. Nearly 24,000 properties were transferred only four years ago—about a quarter of all the properties in the borough. In my constituency, more than 25 per cent. of all families live in such properties. The Government promised them that if, within 10 years, their property was in a foul state, they could take someone to court to put it in a decent state.
The Government say, "We never promised that the GLC would have the money." Of course the Government did not give that further undertaking, but that was not necessarily the problem. People had the right in law to sue


the GLC, through their borough council, if that necessary renovation work was not done. The Government propose to take away that right of the councils to sue on behalf of the thousands of ordinary, hard-working and respectable families in London.
Of course people came angrily to Parliament, because there was no need for the Government to break their word. They came here angry because the Government told them that, if the Government sustained this obligation, they would be made a privileged class and their housing would be made privileged housing. Those people live in old, often pre-world war 1 or pre-world war 2 estates in lousy conditions where, by no stretch of the imagination could their housing be described, anywhere in the western world, as privileged. They look to the Government, who have little favour with them to start with, to do something at least to live up to their promises. It is not as though the promises were made by another party not in government — they were made by the Conservative party whose members are now members of this Government.
If the Government, through the Under-Secretary of State, are going to come up with the same bland comment, "The boroughs will be given the money and, because we are about devolving authority to the boroughs, we are about devolving responsibility too," let them first accept that they are, without any doubt, breaking their word to the boroughs and the GLC that they would provide a remedy for those people. Let them say, secondly, how they propose to compensate in cash terms to enable people to deal with the dampness, lack of space and lack of renovation from which they will suffer tonight, tomorrow night and every night, until the promised work is done. Let the Government explain how they can justify the continuance of what, for any capital city in Europe, is the most appalling housing condition that anyone could imagine and one that is worsening by the month.
I hope that the Government will realise that they have no justification for their actions. I hope that they will realise also that, whatever the success they achieve in the Bill, they can at least retrieve for themselves a scintilla of decency and give some hope to people for whom this abolition Bill means that their hopes of decent housing will be gone. I hope that the Government will hold out some prospect that they will do away with banging their heads together and will come up with a proposal to replace the totally negative, unhelpful and abusive response that their proposals have so far implied.
The amendment is one of several that the Government could accept. We look for nothing less than an assurance that no one's housing will be prejudiced as a result of this clause and that the Government will keep the promise that they gave to the people only three or four years ago. That is all we look for, and nothing less will be acceptable to those thousands of people who are residents of this city and who are the Government's responsibility.

Mr. Tony Banks: Yesterday during discussions on other amendments, one Government Member said that the GLC had lost its housing functions, its ambulance services, water and sewerage responsibilities and its transport, as though somehow county hall had misplaced those functions while going about its day-to-day business. All those functions were taken from the GLC. In that sense, the GLC should not be described as having lost those functions.
Housing was one aspect that was thought to have been taken away from the GLC, but, although the Government might try to pretend otherwise, housing is still a major function of the GLC. The GLC has the largest housing programme in the country — not because it is an extravagant authority but because it is pursuing housing responsibilities which the Government imposed on it as recently as 1981.
In Committee, the Government failed lamentably to point to any GLC housing activity that was wasteful or unnecessary. They produced no evidence of savings that might be secured through abolition.
There is no logical basis whatsoever to these proposals. Although some of the housing functions are to go to the boroughs and the district councils, others are to go to a quango, which is the London residuary body, to a semi-quango, which is the national mobility office, and probably to a private trust at Thamesmead. Once again, the Secretary of State will take great powers. Could the Government come up with a more absurd idea than to allow the Secretary of State to allocate individual bungalows at the seaside to London pensioners? That is a power that the Secretary of State is taking for himself.
A most crucial part of the Bill is the fact that it contains nothing to help the tens of thousands of homeless Londoners, the half a million people on the waiting lists and the hundreds of thousands of Londoners living in the capital's decaying housing stock. One London home in four is in an unsatisfactory condition, according to the Government's statistics.
In Committee, I directed a series of questions to the Under-Secretary of State. I do not believe that I received a reply to them, so I shall try again at this late hour. Can the Minister name any GLC activity which he believes is wasteful or unnecessary? Can he name any major report on London's housing during the past 30 years that did not see the need for a London-wide strategic housing authority? How many professional bodies, institutes, academic centres, voluntary housing groups and housing associations support the Government's housing proposals? Why is the Minister proposing to transfer some GLC functions to the boroughs, when most of those people who have commented on the issue, and certainly those with the greatest housing problems, have not supported the Government's proposals at all? How will abolishing the GLC help London's homeless and upgrade the 650,000 unsatisfactory homes in the capital?
As all sensible and aware people know, London needs a strategic housing authority to deal with these massive problems, to supplement the efforts of the boroughs, which clearly cannot cope with their housing problems, and to run services which can best be carried out on a Londonwide basis. The Government's plans simply pave the way for more housing cuts. The easiest way to make them is to abolish the body with the largest housing programme in the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, in this Bill the Government are reneging on the assurances that they gave to the boroughs and Parliament about the modernisation of transferred GLC property. The tenants are being robbed of the commitment to renovate their homes. They will have no guarantee whatsoever that their homes will ever be renovated. In Committee and elsewhere the Government have shamefully tried to slide away from their responsibilities and have denied ever


giving such assurances. It is a deplorable state of affairs which reflects nothing but discredit and dishonour upon the Government.
The Greater London mobility scheme means a great deal to those who live in the London borough of Newham. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment knows about the housing problems in Newham; he has been there a couple of times. There are a number of problems over the decanting of people from Ronan Point and the TWA blocks. The result is that we cannot offer as many transfers as we should like to those on our housing waiting list and to those who are in council houses which now are not suited to their needs. We desperately need the GLMS. To put it at risk is highly irresponsible.
My last point was dealt with in Committee but we received no satisfaction from the Government. I refer to GLC mortgages. The GLC still holds 50,000 mortgages that were given some years ago to first-time buyers. Their loans, we understand, are to be transferred to the residuary body without their consent. Before it is wound up, the residuary body will attempt to finance those loans from the private sector. The Government appear to have made no plans to deal with the loans that will still be held by the residuary body when it is wound up. Many of those loans were given on fixed interest rates which are well below building society rates, yet the Government say that the loans could be transferred at less than face value. Who will cover the cost of that debt? Will it be the boroughs? If so, how much will it cost the boroughs? These questions are still unanswered, although the Bill is moving-inexorably towards the statute book. May I again ask the Under-Secretary to answer some of the questions that he has failed to answer?

Sir George Young: Of course I shall try to answer some of the questions—indeed, all of them. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the debates that we had in Committee, he will find that he posed a large number of the same questions and he will also find that I gave quite a few answers. Towards the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman implied that in some way the Greater London mobility scheme was in danger. We have made it quite clear that it will be a statutory Greater London mobility scheme. The tenants of Ronan Point have nothing to fear from the Government's proposals on the GLMS. That was made perfectly clear in Committee and I repeat that assurance now.
The hon. Gentleman implied that responsibilities had been taken from the GLC. But the GLC voluntarily transferred its stock. It was not taken from it by the Government or by the boroughs. His concept of the GLC's housing role does not stand up to examination. If he will look at the report of the Herbert commission, he will find that the commission made it perfectly clear that housing was primarily a borough function:
Our conclusion is that housing is so closely connected with personal health and welfare services that it must be essentially a borough service.
Furthermore, the 1963 Act clearly foresaw the transfers, because section 23 confers wide powers for the transfer of GLC housing to the boroughs. Subsection (4) required the council to prepare by 1970 a programme for the transfer of its housing to borough ownership. Therefore, I immediately take issue with the hon. Gentleman about the role of the GLC.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said that it was the largest house-building agency in the country, but once its stock is transferred to Tower Hamlets in July, the GLC will be left with about 15,000 houses—less than the average holding of a London borough.

Mr. John Fraser: What about the role of the GLC in construction?

Sir George Young: I shall turn in a moment to construction.
Therefore, it simply is not the case that the GLC is a powerful house-building agency in London. It was always envisaged that housing would be a borough function. I wrote to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) in November 1984 and made it absolutely clear that the role of the GLC was essentially related to its statutory and other obligations, such as those which have been dealt with this evening, a number of specified new build projects and the operation of the Greater London mobility scheme. I said:
In our view, the boroughs are best fitted to assess and deal with all other housing requirements in their areas. They are the primary housing authorities to whom we would expect to distribute in the first instance all the HIP resources available to London other than those essential to your Council's limited role.
Therefore we are debating, to some extent, whether the GLC should have a role, which I believe it was never meant to have and which I do not think it has operated for the past few years, or whether the responsibilities should be devolved to the boroughs.
The hon. Member for Norwood made some offensive remarks about the London borough of Ealing. He implied that it would not spend its housing investment programme allocation. The London borough of Ealing spends all of its HIP allocation very responsibly and far more effectively than the London borough of Lambeth. It is not the case that all the London boroughs want the GLC to do this work. At least one London borough has already asked the Government to transfer to it the resources which currently go to the GLC for the transferred stock. It has made it quite clear that it thinks that it could use the money more effectively, and I have a great deal of sympathy for that view.
I cannot advise the House to accept these amendments. They seek to maintain after abolition a mandatory programme for the renovation of ex-GLC housing to be carried out either by the London residuary body or by my Department. Inevitably, however one phrases it, this will be at the expense of other local authority housing and tenants in London. That is the direct implication of the amendments.
I have already written to all right hon. and hon. Members who represent London constituencies to explain why, in my view, it is misguided to insist on such a requirement. We have repeatedly made it clear, and I make it clear again this evening, that abolition will leave London's housing capital resources essentially unchanged. The housing investment programme resources which would have been made available to the GLC will instead be distributed among the boroughs. That will take full account of the distribution of expenditure needs which they inherited from the GLC. The prescribed proportion of virtually all the housing capital receipts generated by the


London residuary body will be distributed in proportion to the HIP allocations which, as the hon. Member for Norwood knows, reflect housing need.
At the same time, the arrangements which we shall make under rate support grant will ensure that the broad financial effect of the GLC's obligatory revenue deficit payments is preserved, subject to the outcome of the review that the GLC is currently undertaking and allowing for the ending of the GLC's precept. These new arrangements, together with those which already exist, mean that abolition will have little, if any, effect on the net revenue cost to individual boroughs of the renovation works which they undertake and which otherwise would have been carried out by the GLC. Therefore, on the capital and revenue responsibilities of the boroughs in relation to the transferred stock, the position should be neutral.
We are consulting the local authority associations about the detailed technical arrangements. I very much hope that they will all choose to respond constructively. In any case, the effects which I have outlined will apply, irrespective of the authorities' current spending position in relation to their grant-related expenditure assessments or their targets, should targets continue to be set. Therefore, the arrangements will be ring-fenced and will not be adversely affected. The financial position of the dwellings that they have provided will be irrelevant.
We are therefore ensuring that the individual boroughs will be able to continue the GLC's renovation programme, if they wish. They will suffer little, if at all, from the ending of the GLC's obligations to make deficit payments and to carry out works. As I have already said, at least one borough positively welcomes the changes.

Mr. Banks: The Minister said that the renovations will go ahead, if the boroughs wish. Does he not feel that this is in conflict with the assurances that were given at the Dispatch Box by the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, who made it clear that there would be a requirement to carry out these renovations? It has now become not a mandatory but a permissive requirement.

Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the debate in Standing Committee G, he will see that at column 1113 I said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) the previous Secretary of State for the Environment had been asked specifically for that assurance, and that he had made it quite clear that he could not give it. I quoted him as saying that the hon. Member who had asked the question
knows full well that I am not able to commit this or any future Government over a period of 10 years with the degree of precision implied by the hon. Gentleman's question." —[Official Report, 31 March 1981; Vol. 2, c. 156.]
It is definitely not the case tht a cast-iron guarantee was given by the Government that the resources would be made available to carry out the work to the transferred stock.
I am happy to leave those decisions to the boroughs. They know the position in their local authorities far better than I do. Rate capping is not a relevant factor. We are talking here about capital allocations, not revenue. In any case, as I have made clear, the revenue impact is neutral.
There is no case for requiring the boroughs or anyone else, least of all my right hon. Friend, to undertake those works, irrespective of the relative needs for expenditure between the ex-GLC stock and the dwellings which the

local authorities have provided. That must be a decision for the local authorities. Their members have knowledge of local circumstances and local priorities.
If I am unable to deal with all the points that have been made, I shall write to hon. Members, but I understand that the House would like to come to a conclusion on this debate. There has been a lot of misleading talk about guarantees and tenants' rights under the transfer orders. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) implied that the tenants in some way had rights. They do not. The rights under the orders are held by the boroughs or, in some cases, by the GLC as, in effect, a condition of transfer. The tenants in residence at the time were not a party to the orders and they did not receive any rights under them.
The GLC was to undertake certain works for the boroughs, but clearly it could do so only within the resources at its disposal. As I have explained, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley explicitly refused at the time to guarantee that resources would be available. If one looks at what the GLC has spent its money on, it can be seen that it has chosen to use part of what it had for other purposes—for example, housing association loans and improvement grants. Therefore, I cannot accept the accusation that our proposals involve any breach of assurances. Indeed, by devolving power to the boroughs, they ensure that full responsibility for all local authority stock is held at as local a level as possible.
Let me deal briefly with Thamesmead, GLC mortgages and the mobility scheme. We may come to some Government amendments later which are entirely unsinister and give no cause for anxiety. I have explained that we are committed to ensuring that the statutory mobility scheme is maintained. That is the basis of subsections (2), (3) and (4). We have announced that our first preference for Thamesmead is the establishment of a nonprofit making trust for the area, but I have made it clear, and I do so again this evening, that we shall not impose one against the clear wishes of the majority of the residents should they prefer transfer to borough ownership.
As I have already said, GLC mortgages will be transferred to the London residuary body on their existing terms and conditions. The residuary body will seek to refinance them, but only with the borrowers' consent. I have made it clear, and I will make it clear again, that our intention is that the prescribed proportion of virtually all the housing capital receipts generated by the LRB should be distributed in proportion to HIP allocations.
I have tried to deal with the points that have been raised in the debate. We have already had this debate in Committee, and no new arguments have been adduced by Labour Members to make me change my mind. I am convinced that the arrangements are right and that the London boroughs will discharge their new responsibilities efficiently and responsibly. I ask the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. John Fraser: Because we are so short of time and because I do not want to prevent hon. Members from making their last contributions on Report, I shall not press the amendment to a Division. However, I repeat our dissatisfaction that the Government do not recognise that a promise is a promise is a promise.

Amendment negatived.

Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 59, line 33, after 'delegate', insert', with or without restrictions,'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 39.

Sir George Young: Amendment No. 38 is a technical amendment. As the clause stands, it could be said that the Secretary of State may delegate the entire exercise of his nomination rights or not at all. Thus, where the nomination rights were not already part of a statutory scheme—for example, in relation to lettings of housing association properties — it might not be possible to ensure that the delegate exercised them in conformity with whatever new scheme had been agreed. The amendment simply rectifies that deficiency.
Conversely, amendment No. 39 is aimed at ensuring that the delegate may have powers wide enough to carry out the functions that might be needed in the conduct of the London mobility scheme. There has been some concern that, on occasion, it might not be possible for the scheme to operate invariably by consensus and that it might be necessary for the nomination rights to be enforced. I hope that that will not be the case, and, given good will, I see no reason why it should be.
The clause, as drafted, enables the Secretary of State to create nomination rights corresponding to those held by the GLC which are conferred by the statutory housing transfer orders. It is our firm intention that the operation of the scheme should be delegated to local level, and we hope that it will be possible for its operation to be in the hands of, for example, a committee of the boroughs and districts concerned. But it is right that it should be possible for the delegate to enforce the nomination rights to the same extent, for example, as the GLC is able to do.
The amendment simply puts the delegate's powers beyond doubt. Therefore, it could form a valuable element in the statutory Greater London mobility scheme which has all-party support among the boroughs. Therefore, I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 59, line 35, at end insert
`(and accordingly such an authority, body or person may take any action necessary for the enforcement of those rights)'.—[Sir G. Young.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 95

TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 66, line 23, at end insert—
`(3A) Prior to the making of any Order relating to the functions of the Greater London Council specified in subsection (3B) below the Secretary of State shall consult with the statutory bodies, user representatives, and persons principally concerned with each specified function.
(3B) The specified functions in respect of Section (3A) above shall be:

(i) Ownership, operations and control of the Thames Flood Barrier and associated flood control structures and facilities.
(ii) Ownership and operations of the Woolwich Free Ferry and its associated plant and facilities.
(iii) Ownership and operation of piers on the River Thames.
(iv) Ownership and maintenance of bridges over the River Thames.
(v) Ownership, maintenance, and control of pedestrian and vehicle tunnels under the River Thames.'.

It is entirely appropriate that this may be the last Opposition amendment dealt with on this unsatisfactory Bill, because it deals with the powers and responsibilities of the GLC in respect of the River Thames. The Thames is London's major natural feature and all good government has to do with its control and use.
The GLC, with Government assistance, having spent £800 million of public money on matters such as flood control, on the operation of which it spends over £36 million a year, the Government have made no provision in the Bill for what shall happen to that basic fundamental function. In doing that they show their lack of consideration and understanding for the basic principles of government within Greater London.
My amendment would give the Government power to transfer to any body or person responsibilities currently under the control of the GLC. My amendment makes mandatory on the Government the responsibility of consultation in respect of functions relating to the Thames, in particular, the flood barrier and the Woolwich free ferry, both of which have one end in my constituency, and all its bridges, piers and tunnels. The importance of all those features is that they connect either side of the river or provide features which are common, particularly piers, along the length of the river.
The Government have made one move in that direction. Late last night the Minister of State, Department of Transport handed me a letter which told me that the Government were proposing to the London boroughs of Newham and Greenwich that they should jointly run the Woolwich ferry. There was no mention of how much it would cost. It is a trunk road facility, and relatively few of the vehicles that use the Woolwich ferry originate in either Woolwich or Newham. There is no information about how the existing facilities, which also deal with the Thames water authority vessels, should be used or managed. That is typical of the way in which the Government have dealt with fundamental facilities in London. Flood control and prevention are just two of those facilities. In the closing minutes of the proceedings on the Bill we still have no real idea of what will happen.
If there had been consultation, even with those who know something about the matter, the relatively ludicrous idea of splitting control of the important Woolwich ferry into two would not have been put forward. Moreover, are the Government suggesting that Westminster bridge, for example, should be controlled by the Cities of London and Westminster, on the one hand, and by Lambeth, on the other? Are the bridges to be dealt with borough by borough when a coherent and unified department has been running them not just since the creation of the London county council, but since before 1889? The Metropolitan Board of Works built bridges prior to the creation of the LCC.
As the Bill moves towards the final guillotine, we are faced with the ludicrous possibility of London's bridges being guillotined by the Government so that there are boroughs on either side. I am glad that the Minister of State, Department of Transport shakes her head at that. I am very relieved. But the situation illustrates the parlous state into which parliamentary democracy has fallen. We have £40 million or £50 million of revenue expenditure on London's basic services, and on its flood control, bridges, ferries, piers and tunnels, yet we do not know how they are to be run or controlled, or what will happen to the staff. Therefore the guillotine—

9 pm

Mr. Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Nine o'clock.

Orders of the Day — Clause 98

ORDERS ETC

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 68, line 12, leave out '2(1) of Schedule 3' and insert '10 of Schedule 5'. —[Sir G. Young.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 100

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 42 in page 69, line 2, at end insert—
'(3) Any provision of this Act enabling a power to be exercised or anything else to be done before the abolition date so as to take effect on or after that date is without prejudice to section 13 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (anticipatory exercise of powers).'.—[Sir G. Young.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 17

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 109, in page 161, line 13, at end insert—


'20 &amp; 21 Geo. 5 c. 43.
The Road Traffic Act 1930.
In section 121, the definition of "Highway authority".'.


No. 60, in page 161, leave out lines 14 and 15.
No. 61, in page 166, line 2, column 3, leave out `Sections 30 and 34(9)' and insert 'Section 30'.
No. 62, in page 166, line 39, leave out
`paragraphs 1, 4, 5(2), 7A, 7B'
and insert
'paragraph 1, in paragraph 2 the words from "such other matters" onwards and paragraphs 4, 5(2)'.
No. 63, in page 174, line 12, column 2, leave out `Areas'.
No. 64, in page 175, line 16, column 3, leave out `paragraph 13(1)(a), (b) and (c)' and insert
`in paragraph 13, sub-paragraph (1)(b) and (c) and in subparagraph (2) the words "(b), (c) and".'.
No. 65, in page 179, line 54, at end insert—


1983 c. 55
The Value Added Tax Act 1983.
In section 20(6) the words "the Greater London Council".


No. 66, in page 183, line 14, column 3, leave out 'and 13(1)' and insert `, 10, 11 and 13.'.—[Sir G. Young.]
Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We are now concluding one of the most extensive examinations of any Bill in recent times. We had a full two days on Second Reading; two days on the Floor of the House discussing clause 1; and then 35 Committee sittings upstairs with 176 hours of debate. We have spent 216 hours discussing the Bill. That is more than twice the amount of time that the House spent considering the London Government Bill in 1963. Today, the GLC took full-page advertisements in several of our national newspapers—I have one of the advertisements with me—to complain that a ridiculously short time limit had been set on debate.
The GLC clearly does nor understand how the House works. It singled out ILEA. But the time that we spent in Committee on ILEA, some five and a half hours, is exactly the same length of time as was spent on the ILEA clauses in the 1963 Bill, which set up ILEA from scratch. The GLC also said that we spent little time on fire and civil defence. But we spent a considerable amount of time on those subjects in Committee upstairs, whereas in the 1963 Bill only 10 minutes was spent on them.
The GLC claim that we spent four hours debating the funding of voluntary bodies, whereas we spent 12 hours debating that. Indeed, the Bill has broken another record—for the amount of public money spent on misleading advertising. By the time that the GLC is abolished it will have spent more than £10 million of ratepayers' money on its awareness campaign alone. The metropolitan county councils have also joined in the bonanza.
Today, the GLC excelled itself. Two separate full-page advertisements and one half-page advertisement on the Greater London Enterprise Board appeared in The Times. There were full-page advertisements in The Guardian, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. The total cost to London ratepayers was £63,348. It is absolutely scandalous that such money should be spent by the GLC. It would have bought some 30,000 meals on wheels and would have given support to many of the voluntary bodies that the GLC always tells me that it must save. What sticks in the gullets of many of London's ratepayers is that the GLC has not spared spending money on the best advertising agencies and the best public relations firms that money can buy.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Baker: Representatives from the public relations firms attended our Committee sittings and have been very active. No doubt they will again be very active. Indeed, I hope that they will be active, because the GLC has spent a lot of money on them. As I have said before, no tin of caviar has been left unopened and no bottle of champagne has been left uncorked in the attempt to persuade people of the virtues of the survival of the Socialist GLC.

Mr. Straw: I have not had any, and neither have my hon. Friends. It is a fantasy. As the Minister is talking about misleading things, will he have the guts to admit that he gravely misled the House and the country when he claimed that he had believed in the abolition of the GLC throughout the 1960s and the 1970s, when year after year he actively supported the GLC?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has raised this consistently and has quoted from my collected works. I have answered the point on many occasions and I will say now what I have said before, that I supported the GLC when it was a matter of having a strategic body for land use planning. As I made clear in my speech last night. I have always maintained that view and I continue to maintain it. The strategic over-view needed for land use planning and roads is indeed an essential part of this Bill.
I was dealing with the advertising campaign of the GLC. I note with interest that the GLC still includes on its advertisements the assertion that "74 per cent. say no" but I have also noticed that the size of the "74 per cent." saying no has been shrinking and it is now tucked away in the corner of the advertisements. Could it be that the GLC are backing off this particular statistic?
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) admitted that there have been other opinion polls, and I have discovered that further polls have been commissioned. We understand that in fact the figure was more like 60 per cent. or 50 per cent., and the opinion polls are being fudged and fiddled. We have a right to know what the opinion polls say, because it is the ratepayers of London who are paying for them.
I do not really expect the hon. Member for Newham, North-West to answer any of our questions because he has now been elected, by 26 votes to 20, chairman-elect of the GLC for its last year. I have asked him on several occasions and the House is still waiting to hear from him whether he is going to collect his chairman's allowance of £8,000 or is he going to give it up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] It certainly is not cheap; the hon. Gentleman is not to be had as cheaply as that.
People are now beginning to ask how these authorities can find the time and the money to devote to publicity campaigns on this scale. Why are they not devoting their energies to giving ratepayers better value for money?
There is certainly no doubt about the view of the House on the Bill. In December there was a majority of over 130 for Second Reading of the Bill. Last night there was a majority of over 124 against an amendment which Mr. Ken Livingstone had welcomed as
the biggest breakthrough in the battle against the Bill".
He claimed that the amendment showed
the overwhelming disquiet in the Conservative party about abolition".
Once again Mr. Livingstone backed the wrong horse.
Last night the House made an emphatic statement—that it wants to see the end of the GLC and does not want to see a directly elected successor body with executive functions and a power to raise money. The majority was substantial. In effect, 61 per cent. of those voting said yes to the end of the GLC and yes to no successor authority.
It is four months since we introduced the Bill. Many of those affected by the change have chosen to act as though it would never happen. I have news for them—it will. Mr. Livingstone may not recognise this, but many other people do.
The more responsible successor councils with the real interests of staff and ratepayers at heart are well on in their detailed consideration of what needs to be done in their areas. Getting on for half of them have discussed their plans with my Department. Even authorities which remain formally opposed to abolition are making preparations in this way.
Good progress is being made in planning the transfer of services to the London boroughs, the district councils and other successor bodies. The point is well illustrated by the statement which I made earlier today.
The independent staff commission has begun to make its contribution to smoothing the transmission for staff. The Government shares the commission's aim to keep redundancies to a minimum, to retain expertise in local government and to maintain services to ensure the smoothest transition.
I understand that even the GLC, despite its refusal to enter into discussion and to accept abolition, has submitted formal comments to the commission. I am glad that it recognises that the interests of staff must be properly considered.
Outside London, I welcomed the decision by the West Midlands county council's NALGO branch to enter into discussions with the Commission and the Government. It recognises that abolition will happen and that it would be unwise to wait until Royal Assent to discuss staffing issues. By then it will be too late to change the Bill. I have also just had an approach from the midlands region branch of TGWU requesting a meeting. I shall see them as soon as I can.
At this stage in the progress of the Bill it is worth pausing to consider why there is now a much more positive approach to abolition by the successor authorities. It is because the MCCs have failed to create and define a role for themselves. It is because, as we saw in our debate yesterday, those who want an overall body in London have no coherent view on why there should be such a body, what it should do, or how it should be constituted. It is because the GLC and the MCCs are now seen to be squandering ratepayers' money in a last desperate attempt to save themselves. It is because these authorities have always been thoroughly disliked by the boroughs and districts which are the real power base in local government in the conurbations.
In Committee I referred to the disdain—that is not too strong a word—expressed by some hon. Members towards the activities of borough councillors. It has been suggested that a district councillor cannot lift his eyes above the boundaries of his own borough. I quote the words of the Conservative leader in Trafford, Councillor King. In an article in the Local Government Chronicle he said:
The suggestion that I as a borough councillor can represent my constituents when talking about education or housing but that if I talk about the police or the fire service this is somehow undemocratic, is preposterous … The charge that we are incapable of rising above parochial interest and reaching agreement across geographical and party lines is both insulting to districts and has no basis in history or reality.
Councillor King is right. I fully endorse that sentiment. District and borough councillors have an interest which is wider than that covered by their area or conurbation.
In our 1983 election manifesto we said:
The metropolitan Councils and the Greater London Council have been shown to be a wasteful and unnecessary tier of government. We shall abolish them and return most of their functions to the boroughs and districts. Services which need to be administered over a wider area—such as police and fire, and education in inner London—will be run by joint boards of borough or district representatives.
In almost exactly one year from today we shall fulfil that manifesto promise. The metropolitan counties and the GLC have just 368 days left. The boroughs and districts will have the powers which they have sought for so long. The people of London and the metropolitan counties will have a more effective and cheaper system of government. The House has clearly shown its support for the Government's policy. I commend the Bill to the House.

Dr. Cunningham: The Minister of State talked about borough councillors lifting their sights. It is a pity that the Minister of State in his speech did not lift his sights above the petty, the tawdry and the insulting. Perhaps he was right, because this is a petty, tawdry Bill. It is also dangerous and damaging.
The Minister not only insulted the House and elected representatives in the GLC and metropolitan councils in


his opening remarks, but he insulted the 18 million people who live in the GLC and met areas. He has done his reputation no good.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Rubbish.

Dr. Cunningham: It is interesting that the Secretary of State for the Environment has not even bothered to take part in much of our deliberation on the Bill to defend his own proposals.
We face the final vote, by one set of the people's representatives, on a measure which abolishes another set of elected representatives. The fundamental question right from the outset has been: why should we have the Bill and why has it been put together in this way? The honest answer, which is recognised by the overwhelming majority, including many Conservatives in spite of the votes and strenuous whipping, is simply because the representation in the great conurbations, including our capital city, does not suit the Government and does not find acceptance by the Administration. The councils are being abolished principally for that political reason.
Much has been said in the discussion on the Bill about the important services that will be adversely affected—trading standards, refuse disposal, fire services, administration and funding of the arts, and the strategic development of the cities and the capital. The Bill is really about the tyrannical attitude of the Government and the way that attitude is being enforced by what many people regard as an elective dictatorship.
The Secretary of State is perhaps an unlikely sounding tyrant. However, he and his Cabinet colleagues are systematically removing the rights of people in a succession of measures which have been forced through the House. The Government have been able to get away with it because the people are governed without constitutional protection.
To most of us on this side of the House the right hon. Gentleman seems probably more accident-prone than tyrannical. If we consider his record in his present office, in his determination to trap Sheffield by rate-capping he also trapped Portsmouth, thereby losing a safe Conservative seat in a by-election. If we go further back to his energy-saving days, he exhorted people to brush their teeth in the dark, no doubt while he was using an electric razor. Again in 1980 he had to be persuaded by his Cabinet colleagues not to damage seriously the budget of his own Department of Health and Social Security. As Daniel Defoe wrote:
all men would be tyrants if they could.
An even closer examination of the right hon. Gentleman's more recent history demonstrates his tendencies. In 1979 he acted outside the law, abusing his powers to dismiss an area health authority, a decision overturned by the courts. There was his refusal to accept his responsibilities under the law with respect to the Greater London development plan; he changed the law to get out of his legal obligations there. In the consideration of this Bill in Committee and again yesterday and today he brought amendments and new provisions to the House to change matters retrospectively to suit his own political purposes. That is the record of the right hon. Gentleman in removing people's rights on the one hand and acting beyond his powers on the other.
In some cases at least the people who were affected could take him to court, but in this Bill the Government

are taking away the right of people to vote for direct, democratic control of a host of local services, many of them of considerable importance to our daily lives. I can understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to his record, because it is so abysmal. Some of the services will be run indirectly by people elected for other purposes or by ministerial placemen or by ministerial diktat. Others will be run we know not how, as was made clear again today in the debate on refuse disposal.
After all the hours of discussion, consideration and debate, to which the Minister for Local Government referred, fundamental questions remain unanswered. That is the reality of the paucity of the Government's case. Yet more provisions that exist and are important in the everyday life of people will simply disappear because the resources—the money—will not be available to sustain them.
It has become clear from our consideration of the Bill that the impact of abolition, contrary to Government claims, will have far-reaching and damaging effects on people's lives, on the delivery of services and on the quality of services on which so many people depend. Other local authorities and agencies, the private sector and voluntary organisations will be adversely affected.
The Bill has been shown to have what are often called major constitutional implications. Yet we have no constitution in this country against which to test it. Two thousand years ago Plato in his Republic discussed the passing of democracy into despotism. Recent history provides examples and reminds us of how a formal constitution can protect the people from that kind of transition.
It was in Germany before the last war that a lack of such constitutional structure and built-in safeguards allowed despotism to develop and to tyrannise the world. It was no accident that after that conflagration the western powers imposed upon Germany a carefully tiered structure of local, regional and federal government with elections at every level to provide checks and balances. No element in that structure could be struck out by a simple vote of the national Parliament. Yet that is exactly what this House is being asked to do tonight—to strike out a tier of democratically elected local government.
In the United States as recently as the 1970s, constitutional provisions have been used to protect the American people from the disordered will of their then President. Yet tonight the House is being asked to eliminate a tier of local government for which 13 million citizens of our country are entitled to vote. That part of the democratic rights of people living in all our major urban areas is being removed. Ironically, all that may stop it — may — are the votes of people in another place, themselves not elected, but there by an accident of birth or by appointment.
Let the House remember that, in considering the passage of democracy being undermined by this Government, the Bill follows by only a few months the Secretary of State's and the Government's previous assumption of central authoritarian powers under the Rates Act, formerly widely dispersed to other elected politicians. The Rates Act also involved centralisation, under the right hon. Gentleman's control, of decisions formerly at the discretion of local councillors. Like the whale in John Donne's "Progress of the Soul", the Secretary of State is insatiable — his gulf-like throat sucks in everything that passeth near. The passage of the


Bill has taught us much—[Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government might complain, but I am more concerned about the democratic and constitutional issues than he was in his pathetic and tawdry speech to the House a few moments ago.

Mr. Marlow: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the democratic and constitutional process will allow his party to fight a general election. If it wins, that process will allow his party to reinstate what is being changed by the Bill. Will he give us a commitment from the Dispatch Box that he will reinstate these authorities?

Dr. Cunningham: I shall come to that in a moment. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can be too keen on the prospect of a general election just at the moment. The Opposition would strongly welcome the people of London and of other major conurbations being allowed to have a vote in the elections that should have been taking place. We are confident of what the outcome would have been. It is the hon. Gentleman's party which is running away from and circumventing the ballot box, not the Labour party. We are willing to put our faith in the people and to let them vote on these issues. They have not had the opportunity properly to consider these matters at any time during the Government's term of office.
The passage of the Bill has taught us much. We have learned that the GLC and the six metropolitan authorities have a real and necessary role. They have important functions, which are best performed under elected supervision. We have learned that, in their relatively short lives, they have offered services which are appreciated by the people in the areas that they control. We have learnt that they have been run by diligent politicians of all political parties, working in their spare time to improve the quality of life for their fellow citizens.
We have learned also that the local administrative structures of the country require a thorough review, whether they fall under the Department of the Environment or other Ministries. The disaster of these proposals is that they are not based on any proper systematic, independent, authoritative, review but are cobbled together in haste without any evidence to support or substantiate them. We still adhere to the view that such an examination or review should take place before any fundamental constitutional changes such as this are proposed.
When in government, we shall ensure that there is a proper review of local government structure, functions and role.

Mr. Tony Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No, I am coming to the end of my speech and do not want to speak any longer.
We have all learned that the Secretary of State is not interested in democratically expressed criticisms from whatever direction, source or political party. Perhaps it is worth reminding Conservative Members of what a famous Conservative—Edmund Burke—had to say about such matters:
Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
We are today seeing yet another example of such tyranny. It is only the latest in a long line which the Government have brought to the House.
Many people before the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government. including William Pitt, have said:
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
That is the kind of argument that we have had from the Government to justify what they are doing, and it is simply not good enough.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Front Benches will seek to rise at 9.50 pm. Many hon. Members wish to speak. Will they please bear that in mind?

Sir John Osborn: I have followed the proceedings of the Committee and Report stages with immense interest, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government on the way in which he has conducted them. I have supported the Bill throughout. Within 15 years, however, I have listened to Second Reading and Third Reading Front Bench speeches, and both Conservative and Labour Ministers have reversed their arguments in that time.
I shall touch on the future, with the benefit of hindsight into what happened in the early 1970s. My former right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, Graham Page, was largely responsible at that time for the administration of the transition to the two-tier system. The transition was so great that it was inevitably not smooth. In the early 1970s I supported my right hon. Friends and thought that the two-tier system would work, but since then the political supporters of the Conservative party in south Yorkshire — those in the professions and industry — have increasingly pressurised me to do away with that extravagance. That is why I welcome what was written into the Conservative manifesto at the last election.
In Committee and on Report, issues such as refuse disposal standards were debated. While the Committee was sitting, officials from the various departments in south Yorkshire affected by the transition invited me to see what they were doing. Although I have had good contacts with Conservative county councillors in south Yorkshire, Sheffield and other districts, I felt that the officials had not been at ease in approaching me or my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The chief executive for south Yorkshire, Mr. John Harris, approached me as the only Conservative Member for that area. Representatives of the unions in south Yorkshire have come to me and were especiall—y worried about severance pay. I suggested to them that the Socialist-controlled county council with its "no redundancy" policy, when industry in the area was having to declare redundancies, may have brought this on itself and its employees. I said that in the long term the county council may well not have been a good employer.
Officials have appealed to me because they want a smooth transition, and I have sent my right hon. and hon. Friends letters. I hope that county councillors will get together with district councillors, and that officials will get together, especially in south Yorkshire.
Many people have told me that they will be declared redundant. However, the services which have been carried out by the county council will not necessarily be


dismantled, but will be carried on by the district councils. Therefore, there are opportunities for those affected by the change.
It is imperative that the employers — in south Yorkshire they are the South Yorkshire county councillors, their officials, the district councillors and their officials—act as good employers, work together and ensure that as many people as possible retain employment using the skills that they have acquired under the county council. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take that matter up, especially when they visit south Yorkshire.

Mr. Simon Hughes: In 1964 the Greater London council was born—created by a Tory Government. Eleven years ago the metropolitan county councils were born — created by a Tory Government. In 1979, when the Tory Goverment came to power, the jewel of their crown was the GLC, but that changed when the GLC was taken over by the Labour party. Therefore, in May 1983 the Government changed tack and decided to abolish the GLC and the MCCs. "Abolish the GLC and the Mets," they cried. "Two-tier government in the Met areas is now inappropriate," they claimed, although in the predominantly Tory shires it was to continue.
Abolition went into the manifesto. The Government fought the election on that manifesto and lost support, but our perverse system gave them more Members of Parliament, despite the decrease in public support for them. Then the new Conservative concept was born. They were wedded to their manifesto. Their actions were unprecedented. There was no royal commission, no public inquiry, and what comments they sought, they refused to publish.
For years the Liberal party has argued that we are too centralist a state. We have argued for devolution and regional government. We saw the GLC as a prototype for regional government, and supported its creation. The proposed six metropolitan authorities were in all cases much too small to be regional authorities and, therefore, we opposed their creation. The Bill will abolish all seven.
We want London to have a proper regional authority; to do that, one should develop and improve, not abolish what exists. Strategic functions will always exist, and they should always be controlled by a democratically elected authority, not by a combination of the powers of the Secretary of State, quangos and joint boards. We wish the metropolitan counties to be replaced too, but by democratic regional government, not by the muddle that the Government propose.
Even my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who on Second Reading supported the Government, will not support them tonight. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), like the rest of my colleagues, find the proposals unacceptable. The House should now take the opportunity to have the sort of inquiry that we proposed. If there is not to be a royal commission, there should at least be local public inquiries. While galloping through the Bill, the Government have made hardly any concessions. Almost every expert in the land is ranged against them. The Government, in their conception, birth and development of the Bill, have always intended to take liberties, not for local government but with local government. Liberals and

our alliance partners believe, of course, that as much power as possible should be held by localboroughs and districts, but we believe that in each region of Britain there should be democratic structures at all levels. More powers to the Secretary of State, more quangos and more joint boards are unacceptable.
The Government's distorted, apparent majority in the House reflects the distorted attitude of the present centralist Tory Government. We reject their centralist, arrogant and muddled attitude to local democracy.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Their Stalinist attitude.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman might be right.
We shall oppose this politically misguided, muddled, party political Bill. If we cannot stop the Bill on Third Reading, we look to the House of Lords, as it did last year, fundamentally to turn round the Government's course in the months ahead.

Mr. John Wilkinson: It is always difficult at this late hour in such a debate to make further significant points, but I must say that the Bill has been an extremely unhappy experience for many Conservative Members. It has been a dialogue of the deaf, and a case of the bland leading the blind. We have seen a parliamentary steamroller driven with great suavity but a remarkable lack of conviction.
For many months, many of us have tried to persuade our right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the course upon which they were embarked with regard to London was not entirely wise. Of course, it was difficult to do so, because we were faced with immense preconceptions on the part of our right hon. Friends.
The Government's attitude can be exemplified in two quotations. The first is from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who, when answering the amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground), said yesterday:
Is it not clear that all the major planning and transport decisions fall inevitably … to the Government and to the House? … Where does London begin and end?"—[Official Report, 27 March 1985; Vol. 76, c. 560.]
From somewhere on the Back Benches came the cry, "In Marsham street." Of course that is right. As the Shadow Minister for Local Government said in reply to the debate, we live in an era of grant-related expenditure assessments, of targets, of ratecapping and of a decline in autonomy and local accountability. The Bill will accelerate that process, to the detriment of London's government, as was so forcefully put across in the cogent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour).
The other quotation from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came in the Second Reading debate when he said that London is just
a series of separate local areas with diverse characteristics. Camden has little in common with Croydon; Hackney has little in common with Harrow; Redbridge has little in common with Richmond."—[Official Report, 3 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 27.]
The alliterations may have made good rhetoric, but those of us who live and work in London know that there are common interests which transcend borough boundaries, and certain functions that need to be fulfilled properly on a central basis because it is more rational and cost-effective so to do.
The Government, had they chosen, had the mechanism in the Bill to provide a sensible division between services provided at a local level and services provided at the centre. The mechanism was straightforward. All services and functions that could be, should be transferred to the boroughs. We do not quibble, we make no cavil about those services that, in this legislation, are so to be transferred. However, those that, in the Bill, are to go to joint boards, to the Secretary of State and to the strategic planning commission should more democratically and properly go to a directly elected, Londonwide body. In Heaven's name, why should this party be afraid of democracy and of the ballot box?
This last point is the aspect of the measure which is so shocking to us, because implicit, if not openly acknowledged, in the Government's approach has been the understanding that if we could prevent any successor democratic body being established, we would somehow prevent a new "subversive element" — those were the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) — emerging south of the river. However, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston pointed out, it is up to the House to set the precise role and responsibilities of the new body, and to define them.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government yawns. I understand. It has been a long and tedious process for him and it must be particularly exhausting if he does not entirely believe in the legislation which he has had to carry through. Nevertheless, there is no reason why the successor body, if it is divested of discretionary spending power, should arrogate to itself new and inappropriate responsibilities.
In the last analysis, the Bill will be judged by its effect on the pockets of the ratepayers of London. The Government have skated over the financial implications of the Bill. There was a disparaging speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Highgate and Hampstead (Sir G. Finsberg) about the excellent work done by Cyril Taylor, the deputy leader who has financial responsibility on the Tory group in the GLC, called "London Preserv'd". That document is the most comprehensive analysis of the financial implications of the Bill and it was backed up by the officials in county hall. It does not prove that there will be dramatic savings.
My borough of Hillingdon, in a letter from its leader on 28 February, asked for assurances that the extra functions imposed on it will be met in full by extra resources from the centre. However, we know that the Treasury is steadily seeking to reduce the amount of local government expenditure financed by the rate support grant. Against this background, and particularly as resources have been flowing away from London in the past five years, how can boroughs which are having to take on new functions be assured that there will not be an adverse effect on their ratepayers?
I believe that many of my hon. Friends have felt like saying, "Let us leave it to the other place. Let us set our consciences aside on this occasion. Their Lordships will do our work for us." This is a dangerous principle. We may have a big majority, but numbers do not necessarily equate with the force of the argument. That has been the lesson of this measure. If benefits do not accrue to

Londoners from this legislation, the Conservative party will be judged severely in elections in London in the future.

Mr. Tony Banks: With the Third Reading of this Bill we are approaching the end of what I believe to be one of the most shameful and sordid episodes in the history of this House.
The abolition of the GLC and metropolitan county councils was conceived in spite and vindictiveness by the Prime Minister. It has been nurtured in prejudice and ignorance, and the Bill will leave the House surrounded in controversy and injustice. The Government's unthinking and largely uncaring majority will be used to steamroller through a Bill which has no widespread popular support in the country and which continues to give rise to great concern among a large number of Conservative party supporters inside and outside Parliament. An example of that was the speech of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).
At no time throughout the passage of the Bill have the Government been able to quote a single impartial, independent or authoritative voice in favour of their proposal to abolish the GLC. Voluntary organisations, amenity groups, professional institutions, the churches, trade associations and learned bodies have spoken almost with one voice against the Bill.
It is a sad day for democracy when a measure so universally unloved and unnecessary can tie up the affairs of Parliament and be pushed towards the statute book simply because one person, the Prime Minister, so dislikes the politics of the Labour administration at county hall. Throughout the many months of public debate the only truly honest statement about the abolition of the GLC coming from a Minister was that made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 14 March of last year, when he said:
The Labour Party is the Party of division. In its present form it represents a threat to the democratic values and institutions on which our Parliamentary system is based. The GLC is typical of this new, modern, divisive version of socialism. It must be defeated. So we shall abolish the GLC.
There we have it. The Bill is designed to give statutory reality to a party political vendetta originating from a Prime Minister whose obsessive loathing for all opposition calls into question her very commitment to democratic freedom.
All other major changes in our structure of local government have followed careful and close examination. But such former standards and traditions count for nothing in today's Tory party — [Interruption.] —noted for its extremism and intolerance.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Banks: I will not give way.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Banks: The Government say that abolition will save money, but they have consistently failed to identify positively where the so-called savings will occur.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Banks: No.

Mr. Marlow: What about the results—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) persisting in that way only takes time out of the debate, in which many hon. Members wish to take part.

Mr. Banks: The Government also say that abolition will cut out 7,100 jobs, but, again, they have failed to identify the service areas from where workers will be taken to push up the already scandalously high levels of those unemployed in Britain. Everybody must surely now know that not GLC nor metropolitan county services will be abolished but, rather, the democratic accountability by the electorate over those who administer those services. Elected councils are to be replaced by joint boards, quangos—

Mr. Marlow: What about the results—

Mr. Banks: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The behaviour of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is intolerable.

Mr. Banks: Elected councillors are to be replaced by joint boards and quangos, and ever-increasing powers will be concentrated in the hands of Ministers and civil servants in Whitehall. With the abolition of the GLC elections in May, the Government have revealed clearly their dictatorial tendencies and their fear of the ballot box. In London, the electorate will surely exact revenge on the Tory party in the 1986 borough council elections. For their part in the shameful and unconstitutional exercise, Ministers of the Department of the Environment have earned the contempt of the House. They have sold themselves for the dross of office at any price. They have betrayed what few political principles they might have had by being prepared to humiliate themselves and their former views in the service of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Favell: rose—

Mr. Banks: Nearly 100 years of continuous citywide local government in London is drawing to a close. We must now look to another place to achieve what rational argument and good sense could not achieve in this place.
I was first elected to the GLC in 1970, and I speak with some feeling when I say that I find it difficult to believe what I am witnessing tonight.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Banks: However, I anticipate being a Member of this place for some time to come. I shall never forgive nor forget what has been done to my council.

Mr. Favell: rose—

Mr. Banks: Whatever happens to this most shameful Bill, I remain utterly confident that in the years ahead a directly elected Londonwide council will still be sitting in county hall long after this discredited and divisive Government of second-raters and self-seekers have been deservedly swept from office.

Mr. Straw: I commend to the House the eloquent and brave speech of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). The hon. Gentleman was right to say that

the Opposition might lose the vote tonight, but opponents of the Bill on both sides of the House have won the arguments.
All reorganisations of local government are controversial, but two things distinguish this one from all those which have gone before. In every reorganisation and organisation, including those of 1835, 1888, 1963 and 1972, there have been disagreements about the nature of change but full agreement throughout the country about the need for change. All the previous reorganisations of local government affected local authorities of all political persuasions or none. In this reorganisation there is no agreement or consensus about the need for change. It is the only reorganisation that has ever taken place in which the party in government has sought to reorganise seven local authorities whose only difference from it is that they are controlled by Opposition parties.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Straw: No, I shall not give way to that stormtrooper, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).
That difference exposes the disgrace of the Conservative party. That is what exposes the Government's true motives.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said that the Minister for Local Government does not believe in the Bill. Of course he does not. Year after year the right hon. Gentleman supported the case for a strategic planning authority for London and for the GLC. He moved Bill after Bill in that light. Of course he does not believe in this measure, but he believes in his own ambition. It is his desire—to his eternal shame—to take the Secretary of State's job. That lies behind his prosecution and advocacy of this extraordinary measure.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Straw: In his desperation to rise under the Thatcherite regime, he is willing to jettison old friends and old principles with all the consistency of an Iago. No case has been made for this measure. Not once have we been told the basis of the outrageous claims of savings of £100 million. This measure will cause disorganisation. It will undermine the level of services and reduce the quality of life of the 14 million people who live in the GLC and metropolitan areas.

Mr. Favell: rose—

Mr. Straw: I say to those new Thatcherite Tories with the scent of the blood of the kill in their nostrils that their victory will be short-lived, because this measure is unpopular, undemocratic and authoritarian. It will hasten the day of the defeat of a rotten and corrupt Government.

Sir George Young: Five magic words were missing from the speeches of the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—"We will repeal this Bill".

Mr. Straw: We will.

Sir George Young: Anyone who was expecting during the passage of the Bill a clear statement of Labour party policy on local government has been sorely disappointed. The hon. Member for Copeland treated the House to a series of abuses of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of


State and the Government. My right hon. Friend was called a tyrant and the Government were called dictators. The hon. Gentleman called us dictators because we were striking out a tier of government. Has he forgotten what his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufmann) said:
We shall legislate to create unitary district authorities which will be responsible for all the functions in their area. We shall set up no more inquiries. We shall legislate.
What about the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), an Opposition spokesman on the Environment, who has made it quite clear that he will not lift a finger to save the metropolitan county councils?
Those who have followed the Bill have noticed a change in the mood of the House. After the vote on 12 December, the hon. Member for Copeland rose on a point of order and referred to what he called
a moral and humiliating defeat." — [Official Report, 12 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 1182.]
We have not heard much of that sort of language recently after the vote in the House last night. After that vote, I hope that all the posters that say, "74 per cent. say no" will come down and be replaced by posters that say, "61 per cent. say yes".

Mr. Dave Nellist: rose—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Only one hon. Member can be on his feet at a time.

Sir George Young: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Under-Secretary of State is not giving way.

Sir George Young: At the last election in London the prospect of abolition was a policy that secured widespread support and gained a record number of seats for my hon. Friends. I am confident that, at the next election, the reality of abolition will be equally popular. I predict that at some convenient moment, the Labour party, which has already jettisoned the commitment to bring back the metropolitan counties, will also abandon the commitment to exhume the GLC.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Sir George Young: I shall not give way.
After 1 April, next year, life in London will not grind to a halt as we were told in Committee. The major difference for most Londoners is that rates will be lower than they would otherwise have been. Many Londoners look forward to better government in London.

Mr. Corbyn: Prove it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir George Young: Many Londoners in London are looking forward to better, more accountable and more responsible local government and to services being delivered more economically. I am confident that when these policies are delivered and on the statute book, the country will realise that they are right and that the commitment to repeal, if it ever comes, will be abandoned. I ask the House to give the Bill a decisive Third Reading.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 170.

Division No. 173]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Emery, Sir Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Evennett, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Amess, David
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Ancram, Michael
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Tom
Farr, Sir John


Ashby, David
Favell, Anthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fletcher, Alexander


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forth, Eric


Beggs, Roy
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Marcus


Bendall, Vivian
Franks, Cecil


Best, Keith
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, John
Galley, Roy


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Body, Richard
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gow, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brinton, Tim
Greenway, Harry


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gregory, Conal


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Browne, John
Grist, Ian


Bruinvels, Peter
Grylls, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gummer, John Selwyn


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Butler, Hon Adam
Hannam, John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harvey, Robert


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Cash, William
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawksley, Warren


Chapman, Sydney
Hayhoe, Barney


Chope, Christopher
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Henderson, Barry


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hickmet, Richard


Clegg, Sir Walter
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James


Coombs, Simon
Hind, Kenneth


Cope, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Corrie, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Couchman, James
Holt, Richard


Cranborne, Viscount
Hordern, Peter


Crouch, David
Howard, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Dicks, Terry
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Dorrell, Stephen
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Dunn, Robert
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Durant, Tony
Hunter, Andrew


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Irving, Charles


Eggar, Tim
Jackson, Robert






Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Jessel, Toby
Pollock, Alexander


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Powley, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Prior, Rt Hon James


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Proctor, K. Harvey


Key, Robert
Raffan, Keith


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Renton, Tim


Knowles, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Lamont, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lang, Ian
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lawler Geoffrey
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lawrence, Ivan
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rost, Peter


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rowe, Andrew


Lightbown, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lilley, Peter
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lord, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Luce, Richard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lyell, Nicholas
Scott, Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McCusker, Harold
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacGregor, John
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Silvester. Fred


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David John
Skeet, T. H. H.


McQuarrie, Albert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Major, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony


Malone. Gerald
Spence, John


Maples, John
Spencer, Derek


Marlow, Antony
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Maude, Hon Francis
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Squire, Robin


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steen, Anthony


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Mellor, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Merchant, Piers
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stokes, John


Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, J.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Sumberg, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moore, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Terlezki, Stefan


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Needham, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Newton, Tony
Trippier, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Norris, Steven
Twinn, Dr Ian


Onslow, Cranley
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Osborn, Sir John
Viggers, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Waddington, David


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Parris, Matthew
Waldegrave, Hon William


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Walden, George


Pattie, Geoffrey
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)





Waller, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ward, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Wolfson, Mark


Watson, John
Wood, Timothy


Watts, John
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)



Wheeler, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whitfield, John
Mr. Carol Mather and


Whitney, Raymond
Mr. Robert Boscawen.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Forrester, John


Alton, David
Foster, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Foulkes, George


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Ashton, Joe
Freud, Clement


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Garrett, W. E.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Godman, Dr Norman


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gould, Bryan


Barnett, Guy
Ground, Patrick


Barron, Kevin
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Beith, A. J.
Hardy, Peter


Benn, Tony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bermingham, Gerald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hoyle, Douglas


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Janner, Hon Greville


Cartwright, John
John, Brynmor


Clarke, Thomas
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clay, Robert
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lamond, James


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Leighton, Ronald


Cohen, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Coleman, Donald
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Litherland, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Loyden, Edward


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McCartney, Hugh


Corbett, Robin
McKelvey, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cormack, Patrick
McNamara, Kevin


Cowans, Harry
McTaggart, Robert


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Madden, Max


Crowther, Stan
Marek, Dr John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunningham, Dr John
Maxton, John


Dalyell, Tam
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Michie, William


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mikardo, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Deakins, Eric
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dixon, Donald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dormand, Jack
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dubs, Alfred
Nellist, David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Eadie, Alex
O'Brien, William


Eastham, Ken
O'Neill, Martin


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ellis, Raymond
Park, George


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Parry, Robert


Ewing, Harry
Pendry, Tom


Fatchett, Derek
Pike, Peter


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Prescott, John


Fisher, Mark
Randall, Stuart


Flannery, Martin
Redmond, M.






Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Richardson, Ms Jo
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Skinner, Dennis


Robertson, George
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Rooker, J. W.
Snape, Peter


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Soley, Clive


Rowlands, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Ryman, John
Straw, Jack


Sedgemore, Brian
Tinn, James


Sheerman, Barry
Torney, Tom





Wainwright, R.
Woodall, Alec


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wareing, Robert



Weetch, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Williams, Rt Hon A.
Mr. Allen McKay.


Winnick, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Coal Industry

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move,
That the draft Redundant Minerworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) (Amendment) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.
On 26 November 1984, I commended to this House a draft order amending the redundant mineworkers payments scheme to loosen the link between entitlement to RMPS weekly basic benefit and pension supplement and eligibility for unemployment benefit. The order was necessary because one consequence of the long and damaging strike in the industry was that some redundant miners found themselves disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit for the duration of the dispute by virtue of section 19(1) of the Social Security Act 1975.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am sorry to intervene so early in the Minister's speech, but will he bear in mind that in my constituency I have miners who became redundant last year? Although the dispute appears to be over, the Department takes the view that it is not yet resolved, and still denies them the benefit to which the Minister referred.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member uses one word wrongly. It is the view not of the Department but of the independent adjudication officer. I very much hope that during the course of this debate hon. Members on both sides of the House will have an opportunity to raise points of that nature, to which I shall reply in detail at the conclusion of the debate.
The strike is now over, and I was encouraged to hear this afternoon that the NUM executive will be recommending to a delegate conference next Tuesday that the overtime ban should be lifted. I am sure that I speak for the whole industry when I say that we all look forward now to a return to normal working next Wednesday. The message for the future must be, "Let us get going and put this strike well behind us," but the consequences of the strike are going to be with us for some time to come. The main purpose of the order is to deal with one such consequence.
Hon. Members who take an interest in the operation of the scheme will be aware that the level of basic weekly benefit paid to men aged 55 or over on redundancy depends upon the level of their pre-redundancy earnings in the tax year which preceded that in which their redundancy date falls. Either because they were on strike, or as I he result of the disruption in the industry, many miners had exceptionally low earnings in the tax year 1984–85, and if they took redundancy from 6 April they would therefore, under existing rules, be entitled to significantly reduced benefits. The Government intend to do something about that situation.
The National Coal Board and the Government have said that there is no question of compulsory redundancy. Miners who wish to stay in the industry will be able to do so, but those who do not will of course be entitled to payments under this scheme. The Government have always made it clear that they are determined to ensure that those who take redundancy should be properly treated.
The draft order therefore amends the definition of "pre-redundancy earnings" so that, for the vast majority of men

who take redundancy in 1985–86, their basic benefit will be based on whichever is the greater—their earnings in the tax year 1983–84 or in 1984–85. Those working miners whose earnings in 1984–85 were better than their earnings in 1983–84 will be able to take advantage of that fact, subject only to the normal maximum limit on earnings of £160 a week for benefit purposes. For those who did not work normally through 1984–85, however, the new definition, together with the new table updating benefits as in previous years, will mean that the level of their weekly benefits, including unemployment benefit, should be broadly the same as if they had left the industry in 1984–85.
There is another main change in the draft order which applies to very few people, but it is nevertheless important. This offers further protection to men with breaks in service due to sickness or incapacity. I know that this subject is close to the hearts of many Members on both sides of the House who have constituency mining interests. The further change proposed, though modest, will, I hope, be widely welcomed.
Under the existing rules, a period of more than 26 weeks during which an employee was in receipt of an incapacity pension under a suitable scheme established or continued by the board does not break continuity of employment for scheme purposes. This rule has served to protect numbers of men who would otherwise have had breaks in service due to incapacity. But it has not helped men who, though taking redundancy now, suffered such breaks before 1979 when they lacked sufficient service to qualify for a pension.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hunt: I should like to finish this point.
The change therefore ensures—and this may answer the question that the hon. Gentleman is going to raise—that if, but for a lack of suitable prior qualifying service, a man would have been entitled to such a pension, he will be treated under the scheme as if he had received one.
If the order is approved the change will come into operation on 1 April 1985. However, to ensure consistency of treatment, ex gratia payments will be made to all those men who took redundancy between the effective date of introduction of the original safeguards — 11 March 1981—and the introduction of the amendment.
The amendment order is designed to ensure that the redundant mineworkers' payment scheme continues to serve the purpose for which it was introduced. It is no radical new departure; it builds upon what has gone before.

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister referred to workers who take redundancy now and said that they would benefit under the scheme. Is he aware that anyone who accepts redundancy today operates under the shadow of section 19 of the Coal Industry Act and that no benefit is due to him?

Mr. Hunt: I am aware of that. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is referring to my earlier comments, not the change to which I am currently referring. Of course, what he says is extremely important and I shall respond with comments which I hope will be of help.
Provided that the industry returns to normal working next Wednesday, the problem will disappear for the


future. As I said on Monday, we look forward to a major decision on 16 April which will enable those who suffer up to the moment when the industry returns to normal working to be dealt with properly. I am sure that that matter will be raised by a number of hon. Members.
The order emphasises the Government's continuing support for the National Coal Board as it attempts to attack and tackle the problems which must be overcome if the coal industry is to have a successful future. I hope that the order will be welcomed by Members on both sides.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: The scope of the order is so wide that we can debate the coal industry generally tonight. We are talking about jobs in the coal industry. I do not want to repeat what the Minister said. We welcome the pre-redundancy earnings provision. We also welcome the amendment to the original article 17(2). I shall not restate what the Minister said about that.
I hope that the Minister will consider the position of men aged 55 and over who are made redundant on or after 1 January 1986. Under the scheme, I understand that they will be disqualified for receiving weekly basic scheme benefit unless the scheme is amended. That anomaly arises from the fact that for a person to qualify for weekly benefit, he must register as unemployed and receive unemployment benefit. In certain circumstances a person might still qualify when he does not receive unemployment benefit. However, the scheme does not provide for a person who is disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit. That applies to many workers who, in the tax year 1984–85, have paid insufficient national insurance contributions to meet the requirements for unemployment and sickness benefit in the benefit year commencing 1 January 1986.
The Secretary of State is absent, and I am not complaining about that, but the Minister will remember how he talked in a polite and dignified way about the bargain that had been made. There was a problem about 400 men who were serving their redundancy notice when the strike began. That was taken care of by an amendment. A union circular said:
As RMPS weekly benefit is paid four weeks in arrears, the next payment will be made on the 11th January, 1985, and subsequent payments at 4 weekly intervals, thereafter.
In regard to a problem about pensions, the circular said:
This anomaly likewise has been rectified and the men in question will receive a lump sum to compensate them for the loss to the 8th December, 1984, with restoration of the regular payments.
Although we welcome the two aspects of the scheme that the Minister has dealt with, there is a further anomaly. I hope that he will consider it, because it will affect people over 55 who become redundant on or after 1 January 1986. There was a dignified and positive solution to the other problem. There was nothing yah-boo about it. The Secretary of State was constructive and gave a moderate and considered opinion on it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I did as well.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend is very moderate and conciliatory in all things that he says.
The order that we are debating unavoidably spills over into the miners' strike and what will happen in future. It presents the House with an opportunity to make its views

known. The ending of the miners' dispute produced in its wake an increase in redundancies, and, as a consequence, the necessity to update the redundancy scheme, as was known to all hon. Members who take an interest in these things. What a difference it would have made to the climate of the debate if the dispute had ended in an honourable, principled settlement. We must accuse the Government of acting in bad faith because it did not end in that way. It was not a settlement but victory that they wanted. In her address to both Houses in the United States, the Prime Minister quoted Bismarck:
Do I want war? No! I want victory.
That sums it up.
I substantiate my assertion of bad faith by drawing the attention of the House to column 695 of Hansard of 4 February. The Under-Secretary will recollect that in that debate on 4 February—

Mr. Michael Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To the best of my knowledge, we are supposed to be talking about the Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) (Amendment) Order. It is proper for the hon. Gentleman to introduce this, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am having great difficulty in relating previous debates on the coal strike to an amendment to a particular scheme which is before the House now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I have got the substance of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. It is in order to pursue it, as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has been doing, so long as it is related to the order before the House.

Mr. Eadie: I shall relate it to what has been happening in the industry. I got the concurrence of the Minister that this is a wide-ranging debate because we are talking about redundancies and jobs in the mining industry. The hon. Gentleman tried to pull the same trick during a recent debate on pensions. If he cannot understand the issues, I am sorry for him.

Mr. Michael Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to be clear about this matter as I wish to take part in the debate. Are you saying that this is a debate on the whole of the miners' strike since it began and the future prospects for the coal industry? If it is, I know where I stand.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was not saying that. The hon. Gentleman knows the nature of the order before the House. Provided that speeches are related to that, they are in order. The Chair will decide whether hon. Members are in order, not those taking part in the debate.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to be helpful to the smooth running of this place. I appreciate that you have a difficult job. In your judgment, you must take account of the fact that it was a 12-month strike that resulted in redundancies or otherwise, with the £2·5 billion that the Chancellor told us was a worthwhile investment but which has cost the country dear. Therefore, is it not fair to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has trodden narrowly on the order? If we are to talk about the loss of money involved in trying to smash the NUM, there is a large gap in the fence, and I hope that my hon. Friend can get through it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a three-hour debate. The longer we take discussing what is in or out of order, the larger the number of hon. Members who will not be called. The Chair will decide what is in or out of order.

Mr. Eadie: I regret the interruptions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because they prevent hon. Members from contributing to the debate. I have many points to make, and I assure you that they are entirely in order.
In a debate on 4 February 1985, the Under-Secretary of State said:
The Leader of the Opposition shouted to me about the NACODS agreement, and I should make it clear that, if the NACODS agreement is accepted, there will of course be no need for any written undertakings. It is a written agreement and can be accepted by the NUM. It has always been on the table.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) said:
What the Under-Secretary of State is saying is very important. Are we to take it that the suggestion put forward from the Dispatch Box is deliverable by him through the NCB, and that there will be no request to the NUM to give a written undertaking to the NCB in that regard?
The Under-Secretary replied:
I have made it quite clear and will repeat again that if the NUM wishes to accept the NACODS agreement, there is no need for any written undertakings of any sort. I have made that absolutely clear".—[Official Report, 4 February 1985; Vol. 72, c. 695.]
That is why I said that the Government have acted in bad faith. They should know that before the decision of the special conference to end the dispute by an organised return to work, the full national executive of the NUM decided to accept the NACODS agreement in full. I was authorised by the national executive to telephone the Secretary of State for Energy to inform him of that decision. That would have been an honourable ending to the dispute. I deeply regret that he decided not to speak to me.
The atmosphere in which we are debating the order is polluted by the way that the strike has ended. My fear is that it will haunt the coal industry for some time to come. It gives me no pleasure to say that.
I understand that NACODS believes that the agreement has been breached by the National Coal Board, with the acquiescence of the Government. All that is capable of reaching serious proportions. I have been informed that NACODS was today in the High Court challenging the NCB for riding roughshod over a modified review procedure which was agreed in October 1984. It is a strange irony that, as we debate the order, we are not sure of the scope of those procedures. We cannot verify with the unions involved what new waves of redundancies will confront the mining industry. We can only read reports in the press, because there is no conciliation or consultation in the industry today.
The NCB refuses to consult or conciliate with the NUM. I have personal experience of that. I went with a deputation of Scottish colleagues to meet Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Cowan and Mr. MacGregor. We discussed the future of the industry in Scotland, but they were unable to tell us about redundancies and closures. We also discussed the 200 sacked miners—43 per cent. of whom are branch officials and 18 per cent. of whom were doing official union picket duty. We said that the decision of the Scottish area director to sack without consultation or conciliation was in contravention of all natural justice. We asked Mr. MacGregor to undertake a review of the cases — a moderate demand. Some of those men have never been

before a court, and those who have have had no serious charges levelled against them. We were supported by the churches and three chief constables.
Mr. MacGregor agreed to consider those cases. We left at 3.40 pm, and at 5 pm the chairman of the NCB announced, through a press release, that all of the men remained sacked. He could not possibly have considered 200 cases in that time. His action showed indecent haste and was a breach of faith. The word of the chairman of the NCB is not his bond.
The Minister should be required to spell out the implications of the order for the industry. He should have told us how the conciliation and consultation machinery will be followed. He cannot, because the NCB is in breach of those procedures. If the Minister takes time to read the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, he will find that section 46(1) provides:
It shall be the duty of the Board to enter into consultation with organisations appearing to them to represent substantial proportions of the persons in the employment of the Board, or of any class of such persons, as to the Board's concluding with those organisations agreements providing for the establishment and maintenance of joint machinery for—
(a) the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment, with provision for reference to arbitration in default of such settlement in such cases as may be determined by or under the agreements".
I also have a copy of the guide to the consultation machinery. I shall not ponder over it because of the lack of time, but it lays down the procedure which should be followed. Mr. Wheeler, Mr. MacGregor and the NCB are clearly law-breakers. The NCB is a creature of statute. Every one of the sacked miners has a right for his case to be heard individually with trade union representation. Mr. Wheeler and Mr. MacGregor have no right to sack men without invoking the procedures laid down by Act of Parliament in 1946. If the Minister supports them, he is guilty of breaking the law. The conduct of the NCB as a law-breaker may be the subject of a court decision. At present, opinion is being canvassed. I hope that the Secretary of State for Energy and his hon. Friends will be held to have been in breach of the law. I hope that they will go before the courts and be charged with breaking the law, because they have connived with the NCB in flouting the 1946 legislation.
I wish to raise with the Minister the question of redundant miners not receiving unemployment benefit because of a decision of adjudicating officers. He referred to that matter in his opening remarks. In the debate on Monday evening I told him that the Government were suspected of being party to that decision. I have been informed that some of the cases, in which I was involved last week, have been resolved. I can speak only for Midlothian. I have not yet been home to confirm that information. The Minister has a responsibility to inform us who originated that decision. We want to know. In the debate on Monday I suggested that it originated in Manchester. Some investigative journalists are hot on the trail to find out who originated it. The Minister owes it to the House to give all the information that he can. It is nothing but spite and vindictiveness to deprive redundant and victimised miners of unemployment benefit because somebody somewhere saw that the industrial dispute was not coming to an end.
Overtime is not mentioned anywhere in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. Somewhere it


mentions overtime in relation to safety, but there have been no violations of safety regulations. The law-breakers should be accountable to Parliament.

Mr. Michael Morris: rose—

Mr. Eadie: I am about to finish. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has nothing to contribute.
The Minister must tell the House where the Government stand on this question of spite and vindictiveness. He must clear them of it and assure us this evening that they were not behind it.
I do not intend to recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we oppose the order. However, the Minister must respond to my point about the amendment being sought in the redundant mineworkers' payments schemes. He must give us information about the law-breakers in the NCB—Wheeler, MacGregor, and the rest.

Mr. Skinner: Eaton.

Mr. Eadie: I understand that Eaton may even be in the building. If he is one of the law-breakers, he must be made accountable. We in the mining industry are entitled to consultation and conciliation. That is why the mining industry has been a model for consultation, and why we have not had a general industrial strike for 46 years. Our conciliation and consultation procedure has been the envy of industry generally.
The Minister must also tell us about miners being deprived of unemployment benefit. We look forward to his reply.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Following the death rattle of Scargillism from the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie)—[Interruption.] If hon. Members are patient, they will discover that I have something to say. I shall not follow him down the road of turning the debate about the order into a re-run of the failure of the Labour party and the Socialists to bring Arthur Scargill to the negotiating table, because that would be pointless. The Opposition had plenty of time in which to mount such a debate. They had plenty of Supply days, but they used only one to have such a debate. I shall bring the House back to the order, because I know that Opposition Members, like me, have constituents who had accepted voluntary redundancy but who were affected by the strike.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that many of my constituents, and, I suspect, the constituents of many Labour Members, welcome the Government's action last December in moving the amending order, which enabled the redundant mineworkers payment scheme to be made available to men who had accepted voluntary redundancy before and during the strike. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must welcome what the Government did; certainly my constituents tell me that they welcome it.
The reason why I wish to speak in the debate is that one of my constituents took his case to a tribunal. He is a miner of 38 years' standing, and before the strike he accepted, informally, voluntary redundancy. The period of notice ran from the end of March to 2 June 1984, and on that date he took his voluntary redundancy. The hon. Member for

Midlothian paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), who made a concise and clear speech on Monday with which hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed. As my hon. Friend said, those men accepted voluntary redundancy on the basis that it was a deal: in exchange for accepting voluntary redundancy, they would be covered by the redundant mineworkers redundancy scheme and they would receive unemployment benefit. The reason why many of us are here tonight is that many men are still not receiving unemployment benefit.
My constituent's case was upheld by the tribunal, but the Department of Employment appealed. Then the case went to the social security commissioner for a decision. In February, Commissioner Munroe, sitting alone, came to a conclusion, and it might help the House if I recited some of his arguments. I understand that several other cases have gone to individual commissioners. I suspect that I am not alone in the House in finding the whole business of tribunals completely labyrinthine and confusing.
On 8 February, Commissioner Munroe came to a favourable conclusion. My constituent had accepted voluntary redundancy at the beginning of the strike. He was unable to get to work for two weeks before the buses were laid on, but once they were he remained at work until 2 June, when he left the pit altogether. The commissioner said:
Here the claimant after losing his employment as the result of the stoppage regained it. And the regained employment did not terminate as the result of the stoppage; it terminated as the result of redundancy and would have continued but for the redundancy. From the moment that the claimant regained his employment in April 1984 he could no longer be classified as 'a person who has lost his employment' but rather as a person who has at one time lost his employment but has subsequently regained it. In my judgment thereafter section 19 no longer applied to him unless and until he lost his employment again, and then only if he lost it on account of some relevant clause. As he lost his employment in June on account of redundancy he is not affected from then by section 19 … I do not consider that I am thereby bound to conclude that a person cannot escape from the consequences of section 19 during the currency of a stoppage if he regains his lost employment thereby ceasing to be a person who has lost his employment during the stoppage, and thereafter becomes unemployed for some extraneous reason. If that were so, a person who becomes bona fide employed elsewhere would be better placed than a person who becomes bona fide employed at his place of employment.
In other words, if that man had left the pit and gone off and got employment elsewhere, he would have been entitled to pick up unemployment benefit. The commissioner is saying that the fact that the man left the pit because he could not get into it because of the strike, and then went back to the same pit, means that it would be monstrous if he were denied access to unemployment benefit. That is why the commissioner upheld the case.

Mr. Skinner: It is a good job that that rule does not apply to Members of Parliament.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman may experience the need for redundancy pay after the next election.
We should tread carefully, because, unlike many of our constituents, our security of tenure is not very good. As reselection goes on in the Labour party, one or two Labour Members may not be smiling in a few months time.
My constituent has been through all the procedures and has had his case examined by the commissioner. It has been upheld, and he told me tonight that he has been paid his arrears. That should be a precedent for all hon.


Members who have constituents in similar circumstances. I accept that there may be some variations, but many of us may have constituents with that problem.
I heard the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) saying that he has constituents who are still not being paid unemployment benefit, and some have not appealed. I have the case of another constituent, who has been told that it is not worth appealing until these cases have been decided. Another constituent left Littleton colliery on 29 September 1984 after 40 years service, although he was aware of the difficulties that were then prevailing. Mr. Wright accepted voluntary redundancy, but even now that the dispute is over he is not being paid unemployment benefit. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can help us on that account because there are men who are suffering genuine hardship, and who feel that, because the dispute is over, they should be able to obtain unemployment benefit.
A third category of ex-miner has not been mentioned tonight, and was not mentioned on Monday. That is those men who left the pit and decided to go and do something else, but their other job fell through, and they found themselves unemployed.

Mr. Skinner: I have a case like that.

Mr. Howarth: I see that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the problem.
Those people are in a worse position because they have picked up no lump sum payment under the redundant mineworkers payment scheme. They have nothing to survive on—no lump sum payment to keep them going. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister can look into the cases of such men.
I am concerned about the time it has taken for the tribunal procedures to be carried out to resolve these matters and about the large number of men who are still awaiting a decision. I am also concerned that the decision in the case of my constituent—whose clear-cut and well argued case I have cited and whose name I have been asked not to reveal—has not acted as a precedent.
I hope that the Minister will do what he can to ensure that when the commissioners meet on 16 April, they will be clear as to the consequences of failing to endorse the decision of Commissioner Monroe, otherwise we shall be back to square one and find that these men will have exhausted all the procedures and will still be denied the deal which they struck and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet referred on Monday.
The commissioners are not open to influence, in the sense that one cannot bring pressure to bear on them, but I hope they will realise the seriousness of the task that lies before them. I hope that if they fail to reach the right decision, the Minister will give an assurance immediately thereafter that action will be taken to make sure that these chaps get the deal which they struck.

Mr. Alec Woodall: The hon. Gentleman said that he was disappointed about the length of time it had taken for these cases to come before a tribunal. Will he take it from me that he will be delighted how quickly they come before a tribunal after next Wednesday?

Mr. Howarth: I shall be delighted if the decision on the 16th is correct and the matter is able finally to be resolved.

Mr. Woodall: The hon. Gentleman will not have long to wait after Wednesday.

Mr. Howarth: I am not interested in rehearsing arguments about the strike. That would be pointless at this stage. As I said on Monday night, the president of the NUM should say that the dispute is now finally over. Then we could get back to the business of making the pits profitable. I conclude on that hopefully optimistic note.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I welcome the order. It is a necessary detail to make a fairly generous scheme work. I call it a "fairly generous" scheme in terms of the benefit that it provides, but there is a fundamental problem about it which is at the root of the complaint that hon. Members have made tonight.
The scheme is founded on the falsehood that those made redundant under the scheme are intended by the Government to go out and seek work. That is why they are asked to sign on at unemployment exchanges, why their contributions records are relevant and why they finish up as tribunal cases of the kind described by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth).
The policy of successive Governments has been that these men, having served a large part of their lives in the coal industry, should now be given the opportunity to make way for younger men and be provided with the financial basis on which to retire. However, they are treated under our legal system as unemployed men nominally seeking work, and they therefore come within all the apparatus of commissioners, tribunals and the rest. That is an inherent falsehold in the scheme.
It used to be more difficult for such people until some of the rules were relaxed. There was a time when all who benefited from the scheme had to sign on weekly, even from rural and isolated pit villages, on the basis that they were looking for jobs, which everybody would have been dismayed had they taken because the people who should have got those jobs where those who did not have the benefit of the redundancy scheme.
In those days, if a man went away on holiday or, say, went with his wife to visit his son serving in the forces in Germany, he lost his benefit under the scheme, supposedly being treated as a redundant miner. Thankfully, the scheme has been the subject of some improvement, though we are bound to come across the sort of difficulties with which we are dealing tonight because of the way in which the scheme was originally devised. It was devised in good faith and to meet a need, but it was devised on the basis of an officially approved falsehood. We are talking about a group which we treat as comprising unemployed men who are seeking work. In fact, we are trying to enable men to retire to make way for younger men to do the work which they have previously undertaken in the industry.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the order will change the 1984 redundancy terms, which provide that those aged 21 are able to be made redundant? We are talking also of those who have retired under the voluntary early retirement scheme at the age of 60 years or more. They are made to sign on and look for work for the first 12 months of their early retirement.

Mr. Beith: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. In describing the genesis of the scheme, I did not say that in the course of its history it has been extended widely to facilitate the removal from the industry of many younger


men to whom it was not originally intended to apply. I accept that that has been a necessary part of restructuring the industry. I am glad that those who go out of the industry at a much earlier stage than was envisaged originally still get some benefit from their service in it. In that respect thay are in a better position than those in a number of other industries.
Whenever these matters are discussed in my constituency there is a sharp division between those who benefit from the scheme in the industry as miners and those who are excluded from it as opencast mineworkers. This issue arouses a great deal of anger, division and dissension in areas where the two groups of men live and work virtually side by side in the same community or in neighbouring ones. There is quite heavy redundancy in the opencast mining industry in parts of north-east England, and this has brought the issue to the fore. That is certainly the position in my constituency in places such as Amble, which has recently been excluded from development area status.
The redundancies have caused considerable anguish and there is some bitterness that the opencast mineworkers cannot benefit from the same generous terms as their colleagues, notwithstanding that the European money that goes into the scheme is determined on rules which would allow opencast mineworkers to benefit in Britain.
I understand that the Transport and General Workers Union is taking the Government to the European Court and challenging the exclusion of opencast workers. It appears that, if the scheme were extended to include opencast workers, the Government would receive European assistance. There is a great sense of injustice among opencast workers, certainly in the north-east, about their exclusion from the scheme.
It is possible to range quite widely in the debate, as it involves redundancy and what happens to those who are made redundant under the scheme, but that should not draw us to pick at the sores of the strike, which would be extremely damaging. That would stop the healing process, which must continue.
However, some issues have to be raised, and one of them is the sackings which have taken place and the doubts which surround them. There is genuine doubt, which goes far wider than the narrowest confines of the dwindling group of the NUM's most determined supporters, and a feeling that there is something wrong, at least in some areas, in the number who have been sacked. It is right to consider the background to the sackings and the inevitability that those who want to make a success of the industry will not be happy to see the violence that was at the pit gates brought back into the collieries. That is why there was widespread support, certainly in my constituency, for not re-employing those who were guilty of crimes of violence or serious damage—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to complete my assertion. I was about to say that there is an obvious distinction between those to whom I have referred and those who have not been convicted of serious crimes.

Mr. Skinner: What happened to Jeremy Thorpe?

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman must not be allowed to get away with this. I referred to a group of about 200 mineworkers in Scotland who have been sacked. None of them has been found guilty of outrageous violence. Well,

there might be one among them, but I doubt it. They have appeared before the courts for minor offences. Indeed, some of them have not appeared before the courts. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would support my argument. I say that the NCB had no right arbitrarily to decide that these men should be sacked when there was good conciliation and consultation machinery within the industry.
My plea is for the Government to carry out the provisions of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. These cases should be considered individually. They should not at this stage even be the subject of consideration by an industrial tribunal. The matters should have been settled at the pit, in accordance with conciliation and consultation procedures. The men should even have had the right to go to an umpire.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening carefully, because I was seeking to draw a distinction between cases about which there is widespread public acceptance outside and inside the industry, that right is on the side of the coal board in not re-employing those who have been found guilty of serious offences to persons and property, and cases about which there is genuine and reasonable public doubt. The coal board exposes itself to the industrial tribunal machinery created long after the 1946 Act—it has already done so—if it dismisses people who are not guilty.
If hon. Members do not understand why there are strong feelings about this matter, they must understand that in the part of the coalfield that I represent it was violence that turned the return to work into a massive return. That is the history of what happened during the strike. The Government must remember that a small group of miners seeking to return to work were stoned in a stationary bus by a crowd of violent men after allowing regional NUM officals to put their case to them and listening fully to the case that they should not return to work. After that incident, the return to work was not just a trickle but a surge, with women and children lining the streets cheering the men as they returned to work. That is what happened in my constituency. Government Members may not have seen what we saw in our areas at that time. The extent of the violence turned the strike.
Not all the people involved in the violence were miners. It was fascinating to see paraded before the magistrates courts as having been involved on the picket line unemployed Australian printers, unemployed fishermen and various other people—

Mr. Skinner: And young Liberals.

Mr. Beith: There was no such case before a court in my constituency. There were people who had no previous connection with the coal industry but who were guilty of violence, and that contributed to the atmosphere. Those people are not causing the problem now. They will probably not be anywhere near the Northumberland coalfield for a long time, if at all.
There is genuine public anxiety about those men who were not found guilty by the courts, against whom there is no clear evidence that they committed violence or caused serious and significant damage to property. The Government must recognise that that anxiety exists.
I share the views expressed by a number of hon. Members, although not yet by a spokesman for the Labour party—I hope that one will do so at some stage—that


the fact that the strike is over is to be welcomed. The industry has to return to a proper working footing and its prospects for the future must be enhanced. I say that with particular feeling because I represent an area in which we are fighting against the Government's determination to site a nuclear power station in the area. The hardest period to sustain that argument has been the past 12 months, because the NUM's leaders placed in the hands of the nuclear power lobby the argument that they wanted—that coal supplies and the coal industry were unreliable. I want to scotch and dispense with that argument, because I believe that the future of coal is central to our country's future and energy supplies. Thank goodness the industry is back at work. Let us keep it that way.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I should like to endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He said that no Labour Member had welcomed the strike's end. That was rather unfair, because the hon. Gentleman is well aware that every Labour Member has been desperately anxious for the strike to be resolved. He could bear in mind the fact that a number of us tried to ensure that the dispute did not take place. If the Treasury Bench had hearkened to what was said by the Opposition in November and December 1983 and January and February 1984, the strike which we smelt coming would not have taken place and the country would have been saved at least £6·5 billion, money which could have been spent upon generating jobs.
These figures approach a degree of generosity, but they are necessary for the men who are leaving the industry, especially for young and fit men in their early twenties, because in my area and in many other coalfield areas there are no other jobs. In my constituency there are communities where not a single teenager is in normal employment. In other communities the number of teenagers in normal employment can be counted on the fingers of one hand. If miners are to leave the industry and enter the economic desolation to be found in so many parts of this island they must be treated with reasonable generosity. I do not know whether the word "generosity" is the correct word to use when one thinks of how much the chairman of British Petroleum has been awarded in the last few days. There are Conservative party members who think that we are being generous to the miners. If men who have served the industry well are never to work again, it is right that they should be treated decently.
I hope that the Opposition will not vote against the order. Therefore, I was pleased to have the assurance of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). I suspect that there are one or two Conservative Members who would have liked to rebel against the Minister's cause, but in this Parliament we do not see much real rebellion on the Government Benches. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for the way he opened the debate. He has made it clear that he is prepared to listen to a good case. I hope he will pay considerable attention to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) so that this longstanding problem which affects several of my constituents can be resolved.
It is very sad that a little more wisdom and compassion was not shown earlier. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood made a very relevant point. If it had been recognised before February and March 1984 that there was

a problem, a different approach might have been adopted either by the Government or by the National Coal Board, or preferably by both, and the dispute would never have taken place. But at least the Minister has demonstrated that he recognises that the coal industry has a very necessary and important part to play. It is from that point on that we begin to have anxieties. Those anxieties are relevant to the order. The Minister and his hon. Friends recognise that the coal industry has a very important part to play and that help will be needed to establish decent relationships and a forward looking approach. However, I wonder whether the future role of the coal industry as envisaged by the Opposition is quite the same as that envisaged by Conservative Members.
Although the Opposition welcome the order, at the same time we have to consider the implications of another document from another Government Department for the future of the nationalised industries. The National Coal Board may be involved in considerable expenditure so that advantage can be taken of whatever changes in ownership are brought about by the Government.
It will soon be necessary for the House not merely to debate these much needed, sensible and acceptable orders but also the Treasury document on the future of the nationalised industries as that is particularly relevant to the energy industries which include the NCB.
Let me add my word to the point which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and, to some extent, by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Men were sacked. In Scotland that was the result of a rather aggressive approach, perhaps with an eye to the changes which have taken place at senior levels of the NCB. Promotion stakes beckon even at that level. But it is not only in Scotland that that has happened. It has happened at pits in south Yorkshire. At one pit in my constituency men were sacked before their cases had been decided by the court and without their even being given a hearing. I understand that they simply received a letter immediately dismissing them. That is no way to carry on.

Mr. Eadie: It is illegal.

Mr. Hardy: It is, but I am not so concerned about legalities. I do not like law in industrial relations. I never have. Britain would have been a great deal better off over the past 14 years if that obsession had not been pursued by Conservative Members.
At its best the coal industry is a family industry. In a family industry we should not be looking through the rule book to find patterns and codes of decent behaviour. We should have seen a recognition from the top of the board right down to the youngest apprentice that, after this sad and damaging chapter, we should move forward to success. I hope that we shall soon have apprentices in the industry as well. At the very time when that concept should have been encouraged, we saw men being sacked even though they had not been convicted in the courts. That is sad and the sadness that I feel eats away the benefit of the order before us this evening. If the Minister cannot take action on that, I hope that the NCB will. If it does, I trust that the Minister will give it his encouragement.
I also hope that the Minister will give considerable encouragement to the NCB and maintain the consistency in his approach by ensuring that the NCB is yet again reminded—I shall not labour the point now, but it is


appropriate that it should be made — that the Government are backing the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers' agreement. I hope that my association will not have to start running to the courts again to try to ensure that that agreement is met. The sooner that that agreement, with all that it implies, is extended towards the whole industry, the better I shall be pleased and the better the industry will be served.
I trust that this brick will help to build a wall which will be less easily broken down than the construction of the industry and the relationships within it were demolished last year.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I am pleased that we are having this debate tonight, if it is only to educate the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) on what the mining industry is all about. The difference between him and I is that I have spent 35 years in the industry. I know it from A to Z: I know it inside out. I know exactly what is going on. I know all about what has happened in the past couple of years. It is a good thing for Conservative Members to be sitting in, even if they cannot participate. But some of them make me a little sick when they get up and make interventions without realising what they are saying. The Chair rules in this place. The hon. Gentleman did not get very far with his point of order, because he was wasting time in the three hours that we have to debate a serious problem for the mining industry. The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I still maintain that he is getting an education. If he sits quietly and listens, he will learn some more. I accept that there is a definite improvement over redundancies in the mining industry. A step has been taken in the right direction. However, some of my hon. Friends are correct to say that the agreement could mean finishing at the pit and taking redundancy pay at the age of 21. That is a ridiculous state of affairs.
Hon. Members must understand what the average age is in the mining industry. All the elderly chappies went years ago. They went before I became a Member of Parliament in 1979. I saw them go. As a local branch official I helped to negotiate at a local level, so I know something about that. But the average age is about 34. That illustrates the problem for redundancies. I should like the Government and the NCB to come into the open and to tell us where those pit closures are to be. I want them to be honest with the whole mining industry and with the nation.
I am worried stiff. I am convinced that the Government are planning, behind closed doors, to sell off the nation's profitable pits. If that is so—and I am sure that it is—there will be many pit closures. The Prime Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and at conferences and says time and again that uneconomic pits must close. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) can take that smirk off his face. This is a serious matter, but he is grinning all over his face. He thinks it is funny. He has never seen a shovel in his life. Not many Conservative Members know what work is. We know what it is. We come from industries where the people work hard. It is time that Conservative Members understood that. When they start grinning, it does not help.
If Conservative Members had done what we have done, and had looked at the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the mining industry, they would know that each pit is mentioned, together with whether or not it is economic. The report shows that we could be left with about 100 economic pits. That is how serious the Prime Minister is when she talks about uneconomic pits — [Interruption.] It is all right for some of these solicitors who have two jobs, and who earn money outside. They cannot even listen to an argument put by an Opposition Member. They always act like that. Why do they not shut up and listen? Some of those solicitors used to have pits in their constituencies before they became the Members of Parliament. However, slowly but surely the mining industry is being destroyed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has mentioned the conciliation procedure and industrial relations.
For many years in this Chamber the mining industry, with its conciliation procedure and its industrial relations procedure, has been held up as second to none and an example to any other industry and any other trade union. I am afraid that the Government have allowed it to be destroyed.
Hon. Members shake their heads. They do not know anything about it. I say that the industrial relations and the conciliation procedure are being destroyed, and I can tell the Minister why. Before we had the strike we begged the Government not to appoint MacGregor chairman of the National Coal Board—three months before. We said that if they appointed MacGregor it would mean constant confrontation with the National Union of Mineworkers and the other trade unions within the mining industry. And we have been proved correct. The only way we are going to get back to some normality in the future in the mining industry is by shipping MacGregor back to the United States. We have plenty of people working in the mining industry who have had experience on both sides and are eligible and able to run the industry as its chairman. The sooner we ship MacGregor back the better—and I am prepared to pay his fare.

Mr. David Ashby: rose—

Mr. Haynes: No, I am not going to give way. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman really must relate his remarks to the order before us.

Mr. Haynes: I am trying to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I kicked off by talking about redundancies and about the youngsters who will not be able to get work. In my constituency we have five pits; we used to have nine. Thanks to this Government, four have gone. There are young lads in the villages who will not be able to get work when they leave school. We are told that the shutters are down at the pits for youngsters. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is right about apprenticeships. There is a first-class apprenticeship scheme in the mining industry and there always has been, but we are not using it to the extent that we should. We want lads to come into the industry to be trained to be the future miners, mechanics and electricians. We have gone along with modernisation of the pits right from day one.
I did my stint with a shovel in my earlier life, but we accepted mechanisation of the industry in the interests of the people who work in it and of the nation.
I believe that under the redundancy scheme some people are not going to be treated fairly. We are going to have some real problems.
One of the things that really bothers me is safety. We have talked about safety over the years in the mining industry and the lads themselves have made suggestions for improvements. Yet this Government have not allowed the number of Her Majesty's pit inspectors to be as high as it should be. Indeed, it is well below, and this Government are responsible because of the cutbacks in public expenditure. There are not enough inspectors to carry out the provisions of the Mines and Quarries Acts in the pits. We have put down many questions over the past two or three years, but they have never been answered by the Government. The requisite number of inspectors have never been appointed, so I hope that the Minister will look at this problem and do something about it. It is essential that we have those inspectors on the job to make sure that everything is in order.
I have made my points. I am sincerely interested in what is going to happen to the mining industry in the future. I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) when he ended his speech by saying that he hoped we would get back to normality soon. I want the industry to return to what it was in the days when I was at the pit; when we worked together as one. Then we were all interested in what happened.
The Government must back off. They have much to answer for. Their one big mistake was to appoint that American chairman of the NCB. The Government must now encourage the NCB and workers in the industry to work together—to be sensible, not daft—so that the mining industry works for the people who work in it and for the nation.

Mr. John Hannam: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to the generosity of the scheme. I commend the Minister's actions during the dispute and now that it is at an end. He obviously has the interests of the coal industry at heart.
I have always believed that one day we should achieve the logical objective of a successful low-cost coal production system with a skilled, highly paid work force. Unfortunately, every action by the NUM leader and his associates has resulted in serious setbacks to the coal industry.
We have heard impassioned pleas about loss of jobs in the industry. The NUM president likes to say that he is fighting for jobs, but his actions have without doubt destroyed more jobs and closed more coal faces than the industry's management planned. It is sad that, despite the financial support given year after year by this Government and previous Conservative Governments for redundancy payments, concessionary coal and pensions, all that we get in return is militant and rigid trade unionism which is never backed by democratic vote. It is against the wishes of the majority of coal miners and uses the twisted mechanics of the NUM procedure book.
It would be a natural reaction for anyone to say that taxpayers should not continue to support an industry which

is so self-destructive. If I did not believe in the future of coal as our main industrial feedstock for the years to come, I should sympathise with that reaction.
The responsibility for managing this great industry is now back where it belongs — with the NCB. The Government once again are fulfilling a promise made during the dispute, and in the years before it, that pensions and redundancy payments will continue to be made and improved. Under the Labour Administration, no capital payment of note was made to redundant miners under 50 years of age. The Government's generosity has to be put on the record. This Government have introduced substantial improvements in payments to redundant miners.
Despite all the noise from the Opposition, the Conservative Government are providing handsome pensions in capital payments for miners who choose to leave the industry.

Mr. Barron: If a miner in my constituency took redundancy at age 25 he would be able to get a lump sum of £9,000 under the new scheme. That seems handsome, but if he were then to join the 20 per cent. unemployed in the constituency for the rest of his life it would be a paltry sum. What does the hon. Member think of that?

Mr. Hannam: It is a load of rubbish to talk about miners being unemployed for the rest of their lives. Mining is an extractive industry, which means that there is a constant movement of labour from one part of the country to another. When I have visited coal mining areas in the midlands and in Kent, I have met miners who have come from Scotland, from the north and from every other part of the country. That is the nature of such an extractive industry. It is a load of codswallop for Opposition Members to talk about long-term unemployment for young men who are given that sort of redundancy payment.
It was reported in the newspapers only a week ago that a miner who had been on strike for a long period was offered a substantial redundancy payment a few days after returning to work. He grabbed it with both hands to go off to start up his own business. So there is a clear indication of what will happen to many younger ex-miners.
I am not under-estimating the short-term problems of those who leave the industry and remain in their own communities where there will not be jobs. What I am saying is that, if we create the right sort of mobility, which has to exist in an extractive industry, as the economy grows and develops we shall see new jobs.
I believe that the industry can be taken to the point where it becomes a high-volume and low-cost industry, which will not only supply all our coal needs but will be able to get back into the business of competing for the export of coal as well. Mr. MacGregor was appointed with declared objectives and targets. One was to secure new markets for the sale of coal which previous managers, concerned much more with the internal administration and the problems which existed between management and the NUM, had failed to do. There are major opportunities, if coal is produced at the right price, for export to other parts of Europe and the rest of the world. I believe that Mr. MacGregor is the man to achieve those objectives. This is what he will achieve in years to come.

Mr. Eadie: Surely the hon. Member does not believe that.

Mr. Hannam: I do believe that, beecause that is precisely what he achieved in the steel industry. He raionalised that industry. It is now profitable and has achieved a bigger share of world markets. I am convinced that he will do the same for the coal industry.
We should be concerned all the time about the future for coal. In that regard, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that the coal conversion scheme for industry will be reactivated now that the coal dispute is over? I am getting inquiries about that from major industries. For example, the paper and board manufacturing industry declared just a year ago that it intended to switch over to coal burn for its continuous processes. It stopped its plans when the dispute broke out. Now it is inquiring whether it can be reassured that the coal conversion grants will be continued so that it can switch over to coal burn.
That does not just mean that that industry will benefit by the cost saving that will result; it also means jobs. The manufacture of the millions of pounds worth of plant and equipment that will be needed in the mills and factories will create jobs elsewhere in the economy. If it had not been for the disastrous coal dispute, that industry would have been well on the way to switching over to coal burn and extra jobs would have been created elsewhere.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts and the efforts of the Government to re-establish a viable, effective coal industry. Once the dust of the coal dispute has settled I am sure that the majority of miners will also support what he and his right hon. Friends are trying to do.

Mr. Kevin Barron: On 1 March 1984, the chairman of the NCB gave figures for tonnages in the industry. He also suggested that 20,000 people would be made redundant. The miners have returned to work during the past three weeks, so it would be interesting to know how many people will be affected by this order which was introduced on 1 April 1984 and will end on 30 March 1986. As these so-called generous offers have been made to miners, it would be interesting to know how many people will benefit. That is something that the House should know so that we can estimate how much it will cost.
I congratulate the Minister on proposing to pay people who have left work through incapacity. Their broken service has been taken into account in the past, but now they can benefit from the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) raised this matter in 1983. He will be pleased to know that that anomaly has been rectified.
This appears to be a debate for congratulating decisions. I congratulate the NCB on its decision last night to extend the executive from the chairman and deputy chairman to a wider board. That move will be welcomed throughout the industry, especially by the NUM, NACODS and the British Association of Colliery Managers. Those trade unions have, during the past 12 months, been highly dissatisfied with what has happened in the NCB. Mr. MacGregor packed the NCB with part-time professional people from other industries and ignored the highly qualified and skilled mining engineers who have worked in the industry for many years and who recognise the industry's needs. It is a pity that some of those people have now finished with the industry; and that can be directly related to dissatisfaction with the chairman.
I am tempted to ask the Minister to extend the order to include someone at the top. Whether that person wants to

return to America or to his native Scotland does not matter. I am not offering to pay his fare, but I am sure that a collection could be made if necessary. He was paid a reasonable transfer fee when he joined the NCB. No one would object if the order was extended to the man at the top. I am sure that there are others more capable than him of running the industry.
The order is wide-ranging. I wish to direct my remarks to the aftermath of the strike and the question of dismissed miners. Many miners have been dismissed by decision taken outside the usual conciliation procedures. That point was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). According to statements in the media, it is clear that men have been dismissed without proper conciliation. That has much to do with the strike. People who were dismissed many months ago could not have their cases discussed formally at local level because of the strike. However, my information is that there has been little discussion since the strike ended, certainly in Yorkshire. I regret that. It appears from the media that the NCB's answer has been to tell those who have been dismissed to go to an industrial tribunal.
I do not know whether right hon. and hon. Members know about industrial tribunals, but they are second best to conciliation procedure in industrial relations. That is clear from the involvement of ACAS as it settles many cases before they get anywhere near industrial tribunals. The NCB has let the industry down by saying that men should go to industrial tribunals.

Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend is making a serious point. I mentioned law, because we always get law from the other side of the House. Is my hon. Friend aware that, when I saw Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Wheeler, I asked them whether, if an industrial tribunal decided that a victimised miner should not have been victimised, they would give an undertaking that he would get his job back and that Mr. MacGregor refused to give such an undertaking? Indeed, Mr. Wheeler is on record in the press as saying that he would not give them their jobs back. The consultative and conciliation machinery in the industry, not industrial tribunals, is the answer.

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend is right. The director or, perhaps, ex-director of the Scottish coalfield has said that, if someone was found to have been dismissed unfairly by an industrial tribunal, he would not be set off.
The tribunal can find in favour of a man and say that he has been dismissed unfairly, but it must meet again to say whether compensation should be paid. Compensation averages £700—nowhere near the figures that have been mentioned in connection with the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme. The tribunal can say that someone should be reinstated, but the employer does not have to reinstate him. In terms of justice, there is a fundamental flaw in that system.
The NCB has also claimed that those who have been found guilty of misconduct in the past 12 months have been treated no differently. On the basis of my experience of working for the NCB for some 20 years, I do not believe that that is the case. I have seen violence offered underground. People have admitted to being in breach of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 because they have fallen out and fought. I have even seen that happen with officials. They have been taken to the office, where they have realised what they have done, in the heat of the moment


and they have been fined. I remember one person being suspended for a few days. They have then worked in the industry for many years after, and there has been no recurrence of trouble. The NCB is now saying that such people could never be trusted again, and so must be got rid of. Again the NCB is wrong in making public statements to the media that it is treating and has treated people during the past 12 months as in the 12 years prior to that. Anyone who has worked in the industry and considers the position of dismissed miners today, knows that that is not true.
I shall highlight the matter with two constituency cases. The first relates to a miner who works at Kiverton Park colliery. He was arrested and charged with besetting a working miner's home and with using threatening behaviour through abusive language. He and two others were taken into custody and he was in Armley gaol for three weeks. His solicitor told him that he could come out of custody only by pleading guilty to besetting, and also that a deal had been struck, as they are in court between prosecuting and defence solicitors, that if he pleaded guilty to besetting, the other charge would be dropped. He pleaded guilty last year, thinking that that way he could get back to his family and away from being for the first time in prison on remand. Although I have never taken part in besetting, I have personal knowledge of the incident, and know that the besetting was nothing more nor less than shouting abuse across a road in the presence of dozens of policemen.
The important point is that the man took a decision in January to return to work. He had been on strike since March 1984 and decided that he had had enough. He worked for six weeks at the colliery, where the man whose home he had been charged with besetting was also working. When at the beginning of this month the miners in the Yorkshire coalfield decided to return to work, that man was taken into the manager's office and sacked for that alleged offence. The man, as he claimed in the local media, was used by the NCB for those six weeks. There was no recurrence of any violence that may have occurred when he was charged. That man has a case to argue that what happened to him was wholly wrong. Although he worked for six weeks beside the man he was supposed to have wronged, it was decided that he was not to be trusted and he was sacked. He remains sacked today.
The second case is about a man at Maltby colliery who was also charged with threatening language and besetting a man's home. He returned to work on 4 March and received a letter from the colliery manager which extended a warm welcome to him for returning to work. The vast majority of miners at that colliery returned then. On 18 March he was taken into the office and sacked. He received a letter on the same date, which says
I am satisfied that you were involved in besetting the home of a working miner. Your action amounts to gross misconduct justifying my dismissing you from your employment with the Board. Your conduct was an interference with the Board's business in that it was an attempt to intimidate a Board employee so as to try and prevent him from fulfilling his Contract of Employment.
That man has yet to appear in court. He has never been in court in his life, yet he is being sacked on the say-so, presumably, of either the police or an employee to the employer. That smacks of injustice. Although I cannot speak in great detail about the man's case, because it has not yet been to court, it appears that the NCB management has found him guilty of shouting at a working miner. I

should add that the vast majority of workers at that colliery have been found guilty, at some time during the past 12 months, of shouting abuse at working miners. The circumstances may be different when that man goes to court, but my information from his solicitor is that he has a good chance of getting off.
That man, together with two others who were arrested on the same day, has been sacked, although they have not been near a court of law. Although they met the management once, they have not had the opportunity to use the conciliation procedure. Under that procedure, if the management were not satisfied with the man's explanation at the beginning of the month, he could have gone to see area NUM officials and area NCB management to argue whether he should have been dismissed. But now he has been told that he must go to an industrial tribunal. What is happening at present is wrong, and there are double standards in the industry where there should not be.
The thread of this debate—this brings in section 19, to which the Minister referred earlier — is how they should be treated when they are dismissed. One of my constituents came to see me earlier this month. He was dismissed in February. He went to the local unemployment office and asked to sign on because he had been found guilty in a court of law of two offences, and had been sacked. The officials there told him that he was still deemed to be on strike and that he had to claim supplementary benefit. When he went to do that, he was told that he could claim it only for his wife and children, less the £16 a week that he was alleged to have been paid by the National Union of Mineworkers.
I wrote on my constituent's behalf to the local office, because, in my view, the strike had finished on 6 March at that colliery. I believed that he was entitled to receive supplementary benefit for himself, and that the 16 a week should not be removed from him. I received a letter from the local office dated 13 March, which stated:
I am writing in reply to your letter dated 11 March regarding Mr. Christopher Hill of 35 West Street, Thurcroft, Rotherham … The decision whether a person is involved in a trade dispute is made by an Adjudication Officer at the Unemployment Benefit Office. Although the majority of mineworkers have returned to work, the Adjudication Officer has now to decide whether or not the dispute can be deemed to have ended and the date thereon on a pit by pit basis. In these circumstances, Section 8 of the Supplementary Benefit Act 1976 requires the Supplementary Benefit Adjudicating Officer to continue regarding Mr. Hill as not being entitled to benefit for his own requirements and that he can only receive benefit for his family.
I assume that the officials still deem him to be in receipt of £16 a week.
I then wrote to the district adjudication office in Rotherham, which forwarded my letter to the regional employment office in Leeds. This week I received a letter dated 25 March from a Mr. D. Holmes, who signed for the regional benefit manager. The letterhead is the Department of Employment at City house in Leeds. It states:
Your letter … addressed to the Adjudication Officer, Rotherham has been passed to this office for reply as a trade dispute adjudication is dealt with on a regional basis by this office.
The second paragraph is a broad history of Mr. Hill's position, and it mentions section 19.
The letter continues:
In this connection I should perhaps explain that, in deciding this type of case, the Adjudication Officer is bound to take account of relevant case law. In decision R(U)12/72, the Social Security Commissioners laid down that where a person is due to


end his employment (for whatever reason) but a stoppage of work intervenes and causes him to lose employment earlier, then he has lost employment by reason of that stoppage of work and a disqualification for receipt of unemployment benefit will normally follow and will remain in force until the stoppage of work ceases.
If I have not confused everyone yet, perhaps I can continue with the penultimate paragraph, which states:
I should perhaps point out that the fact that a strike is over does not necessarily mean that the stoppage of work due to that strike has come to an end.
Most people would have thought it logical that it did.
We know that the strike in which Mr. Hill was involved has ended, and we have written to his Colliery Manager to establish the position on 5.3.85—with a view to deciding whether the stoppage of work has ended at that particular pit. Under the terms of the Social Security Commissioners decision R(U)25/57, the stoppage of work cannot be regarded as having ended until work is proceeding normally and the effect of the overtime ban on normal working is a factor to be considered.
I phoned up Mr. Holmes yesterday to find out what the letter meant, because there seemed to be a contradiction in one or two of the sentences of the letter. I asked Mr. Holmes what he meant by "normal working". The Minister will recall that I told him on Monday that one coal face in one of my collieries has been withheld by the board from normal working, whether it is for incentive or deeper reasons.
Mr. Holmes told me that the adjudication officer who takes this decision is the chief adjudication officer in the Department of Health and Social Security. I asked where his office was, and Mr. Holmes said, "I am not sure. Sometimes it is in London and sometimes it is in Southampton. He moves between those two places. His name is Mr. Parsons, he is a legal man and a very nice man." I did not know whether to phone London or Southampton to talk to Mr. Parsons.
I then asked Mr. Holmes what was meant by "normal working", and I was told 90 per cent. of the normal production of the colliiery in 1983–84. Since the strike has ended, we have heard much about the loss of coalfaces, and some colleries may never get back to 90 per cent. of the 1983–84 production level. Presumably, in that case, the adjudication officers will never think that those collieries have returned to "normal working". What does the Minister deem "normal working" to be?
My office is in the village in which Mr. Hill both lived and worked before he was dismissed. I was talking to my secretary yesterday, and she told me about the wife of a miner who had gone back to work on 6 March, and was claiming single payment from the DHSS for that week. I said that that was impossible because single payment had always been denied to striking miners, throughout the strike, because they were caught in the trap of social security legislation. If one has fallen on hard times and is living on supplementary benefit, one can get the single payment, but if one is a trade unionist, or the family of a trade unionist, with principles that mean that one will stand up and fight for something, one cannot be paid single payment.
My secretary told me that there was no problem. The miners went back to work at Thurcroft colliery—the one from which Mr. Hill was dismissed — on the week starting Monday 5 March. If they had not got any wages to come on 8 March, they could claim supplementary benefit. Each one could claim the full amount, including

the £16—which had been stopped for 12 months—and payments for single men on supplementary benefit, who had been without a penny for so long.
Despite that, Mr. Hill, who had been dismissed by the NCB in February last year, has been denied the same benefits, because he is deemed to still be on strike. There has either been some interdepartmental bungling, or some victimisation of Mr. Hill—or perhaps both.
It is not satisfactory for hon. Members to be talking about tribunals and adjudicators when that sort of thing is going on in my constituency. Mr. Hill is suffering beyond reason. He has been fined in court and sacked. He has suffered twice for the crime that he committed. He should not be made to suffer more as a result of the operation of the social security system or through the bungling of a DHSS adjudicator who obviously does not know what day it is.
I want the Minister to investigate that and any other cases of its type to ensure that people who have been dismissed are not victimised by the NCB or by supplementary benefit officials. The Minister said that he would like to put the strike firmly behind us. It will never be put to rest while Mr. Hill and people like him are bearing the scars of the dispute in the way that I have described.
The summary decision of the NCB to sack people—for crimes that they have, or perhaps have not, committed; the courts have not yet decided many of the cases—will not enable us to put the strike behind us. The injustices, some of which I have mentioned, must be put right as soon as possible.

Mr. Allen McKay: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and wish to add to his comments about redundancies and the situation in the mining industry. He was right to say that the NCB had established itself as judge and jury and that people were being punished twice for having done something wrong. That is foreign to everything that the NCB has stood for over the years, going back to the time when I worked for it, until Ian MacGregor became its chairman.
I hear people say that they have faith in MacGregor. I have not and I never have. I will not challenge his management expertise, but such expertise as he has is wrong for the NCB, just as it was wrong for the steel industry. I met him on half a dozen occasions when he was chairman of the British Steel Corporation and at that time he was saying exactly the same for steel that he is now saying for coal. "My job is to find the means of selling the product," has been his claim.
What has been the result of MacGregor's attitude, for example, on my area? I received a letter today telling me that Tinsley slab mill, one of the most modern in Europe, is to close. It will close, causing enormous redundancy in the area, because Samuel Fox, which is now British Steel, Stocksbridge, part of Tinsley Park and part of Aldwark, used to be the United Steel Company. The whole lot could become part of United Steel, but that is a prosperous organisation and will, no doubt, be ripe for selling off after the slab mill has gone.
What did MacGregor, as chairman of British Steel, do to find new outlets? He used British Steel money to try to buy a clapped-out steel works in America, because he wanted to transfer slabs from here to sell them in America.


But that never came off. I cannot think of anything positive that Ian MacGregor did for the steel industry, except close steel works.
Then MacGregor became chairman of the NCB. Time and again I have said that there are far better people within the management structure of the NCB than MacGregor ever was and ever will be.
In considering the whole question of redundancies and the activities of Ian MacGregor, the first question to ask is why certain people have left the NCB. For example, why did Geoff Kirk leave? Why did Paul Glover leave? Why did Ned Smith leave? These men were advising the National Coal Board from its inception. Why did they leave? Why is the NCB hardening its attitude? It is something which is foreign to the industrial relations which have been built up over the past 25 years.

Mr. Ashby: The answer is "Mr. Scargill."

Mr. Mckay: The hon. Gentleman should ask himself how long Arthur Scargill has been the president of the NUM.

Mr. Ashby: Too long.

Mr. McKay: In that case, why was there not trouble much earlier? My constituents know why the strike started. The sad feature is that it should never have happened. The opportunity to start a strike should never have been available. It is significant that the closure of Cortonwood took place when Mr. MacGregor became chairman of the NCB. The industry has been working to create low costs and high wages for the past 20 years. That is the end to which many have given a life's work.

Mr. Bill Walker: We are here to listen and to try to be constructive. I am sure that my hon. Friends want to see the coal industry return to full operation. However, we find it difficult to understand why so many miners worked throughout the dispute without being persuaded by the arguments that we are hearing this evening. They were not persuaded that Mr. MacGregor and many other things were wrong for the board. These miners worked individually and collectively. Until an explanation is given for that, the hon. Gentleman will not persuade many of my hon. Friends to accept his argument.

Mr. McKay: I shall not go down that avenue this evening. However, I shall be glad to answer the hon. Gentleman's question when we have a full debate on the coal-mining industry. The answer lies in the history of the industry and of the board, and unless he has studied that history he will be unaware of the answer.
There has been talk about the responsibility of management. The right of the management to manage has never been in question. Indeed, that right is enshrined in law. Until recently, management in the coal industry has been by consensus, not by fear. We must return to the conditions that applied before Mr. MacGregor became the chairman of the board. That is why I applaud the extension of the management structure at Hobart house. I hope very much that it will soon be in operation.
It seems that there will not be as many redundancies as I feared, but there will be some, and that is why the order is designed to make the redundancy scheme attractive. Some of the measures, which have been introduced gracefully by the Minister, have been well received. I am

sure that they will be similarly well received outside the House. However, I shall want to examine them and their implications in the cold light of day.
Conservative Members have talked about jobs for everyone, and the debate provides an opportunity to say what that means. I placed redundant miners in Scotland and Durham in the prosperous coalfields of south Yorkshire. I had the misfortune on one or more occasions to move them from colliery to colliery. However, there comes a time when there is nowhere to which they can move. Conservative Members should consider the location of jobs and the implications for those who they think should take them. Colliery closures mean the virtual closure of villages. Because there is no work, people do not want to buy the miners' homes. Miners have to remember that the future of their children, who may be taking A-levels or O-levels, must be considered before they move from an area.
Les Hill, who lived at Cawthorn, provides one example of the difficulties facing miners. He worked at Shafton workshops, which decided in a rationalisation that some of its work would be moved to Carcroft. Mr. Hill found it difficult to move from Cawthorn to Shafton; he found it impossible to move from Cawthorn to Carcroft. At 54, he had no alternative but to take redundancy. One could say, "There was a job for him". There are supposed to be jobs for everyone, but there was not a job for him at Carcroft, so there is not a job for everyone.
In February, Mr. Hill was counselled to take his redundancy payment. Because he was a foreman, management asked him to stay on to take down the machinery that was being transferred to Carcroft rather than take his redundancy payment. Like a good workman, he did. Because he did what management asked, he was caught up in the strike. He lost six months' service pay and unemployment pay, even though he was on notice. The management made him redundant in September, while the strike was on.
If it was right to make him redundant while the strike was on, it was right that he should have been paid unemployment pay at the same time. That is one of the examples that the Opposition can bring to the Minister's attention at any time.
The adjudication officers' decisions were entirely wrong, because they did not take into account what the law said. The law says that a person will not receive unemployment pay because of a stoppage. The measure was introduced simply to prevent people from drawing unemployment to offset wages due to loss suffered because of a stoppage. Since the men returned to work, there has not been a stoppage. The stoppage is over. The present overtime ban started before the stoppage. During the strike, people were made redundant or left the industry and received unemployment benefit.
Are the adjudication officers vindictive, or have they been terribly wrong in their reading of the law, and decided accordingly? Ministers say that they cannot do a thing about this. Ministers have influence, and they can bend arms and ears. If peace is to be brought back to the coal mining industry, arms and ears should be bent and adjudication officers should decide according to the law on stoppages.
For years, there has been conciliation and consultation machinery. The coal board has always dismissed people who have fought on colliery premises. It has never dismissed people who have fought off colliery premises or


committed misdemeanours on colliery premises, provided that they were not committed against the NCB. Why has there been a change of attitude? What has the coal board decided, on top of the civil action which has correctly taken place, irrespective of whether the action occurred on colliery premises? That has never been done before. For how long will this continue? The NCB has created a precedent. If a man says in 10 years that he was insulted by a person who was on strike, will that former striker be dismissed, or will he carry on, as has always happened in the past?
Why should somebody be dismissed, because a finger has been pointed at him—we come back to the witch hunt—unless the National Coal Board has decided that those who work for it are its property? It is well known that American miners were the property of the coal company. They had to live in the company's houses and spend at the company's shop. Mr. Ian MacGregor's hostility towards American miners and the American system is well known. So we come back to the head of the National Coal Board.
We welcome the changes. They will make redundancy more attractive and will create the justice that has been missing for quite some time. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) will be cheered up no end—illness in the family has kept him away from the House for the past two weeks —when he reads in Hansard that something for which he has been fighting has been brought to fruition.
I welcome the redundancy payments scheme. The scars have to be healed, but this can and must be done. As the Minister knows, there are those in the National Coal Board who would be better able to heal those scars than the chairman of the board. It is time that they were given their head and that the coal board was brought back to what it was before the strike.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not think the coal board will get back to what it was before the strike, and I do not think the miners should allow themselves to be put in a position where that kind of collaboration goes on as it did before, because those years of collaboration and conciliation did not get the miners anywhere. They allowed the board to build up massive stocks of coal. The Government and the board—people like Mr. Eaton and the rest, besides Mr. MacGregor—then decided to take advantage of the fact that supply had outstripped demand and, with all the other facets of the Ridley plan, they got stuck into the miners and their families. So my plea to the miners, notwithstanding the fact that they have gone back to work, is to make sure that they carry out the policy of equating supply with demand.
The miners can do better than that. They can make sure that supply does not equate with demand. They should keep it just a little bit below demand. That is the way to keep pits open. Everybody who knows a little bit about this industry knows that at times when pit closures were at a low ebb the supply of coal equated with demand, or supply was even less than the amount that could be sold on the open market. That applied to Governments of whatever colour. I make no specific point about that.
Therefore, my advice to the miners I have addressed in the coalfields still is, and I use this debate to say it again,

to adopt the maxim that the miners of old adopted: leave a little bit of coal for tomorrow; do not smash any productivity records; do not get their photograph in Coal News so that Eaton and MacGregor can fawn over them and say what a wonderful job they have done by breaking another European record, after which the NCB chiefs will sit drinking champagne and gloating over the miners for having smashed records.
I hope miners have had their political consciousness raised during the last 12 months and that they will adopt the market economy philosophy, just as the Tory party have adopted it. I hope they will make sure that they do not supply too much coal so that the report in the Daily Telegraph on 22 March 1985 can be kept intact for a long time. It gladdened my heart to read in that report:
Coal supplies, so bountiful, are now dwindling so much that rationing has been introduced in parts of the south-east. The problem apparently surrounds anthracite and other coal which merchants bought from abroad while home supplies, hewn in South Wales, were unavailable. The merchants have decided to hold out against ordering more of the expensive anthracite from Germany, America and South Africa with the prospects of cheaper, home-produced fuel.
I thought that the strike was all about shutting pits and the fact that we do not have cheap coal in Britain. I thought that it was all about the fact that there was so much cheap coal on the open market that we have got to shut pits. According to last week's Daily Telegraph, ours is cheap. The article went on:
The merchants were caught out by the latest cold spell and now foreign imports have dried up.
I want that to last because the miners' bargaining power will remain high while the markets are there. I fancy the miners' chance in that situation.
One of the credits in the strike, notwithstanding all the difficulties, is that during that year not more than 80 million tonnes of coal was mined. That means that, despite all the oil supplies and the additional use of nuclear power—

Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman advocates an honest day's pay for a dishonest day's work.

Mr. Skinner: The moonlighting barrister should be careful. He has plenty of jobs on his plate. I have got some more references to him if he keeps on interjecting.
We are now in a strong market position. Massive amounts of coal have not been produced and stocks have been reduced from the 60-odd million of those dire days of 1983 to 12 million tonnes, if that, as the Secretary of State said the other day, behind the power station fences.
We must ensure that the miners that we represent are not placed in the predicament that they have been placed in before by building up those stocks of coal. My advice to the miners in the Chamber and outside is that they should never allow those stocks to be built up again so that people like Mr. Michael Eaton can take a rise out of them when it suits them.
In a capitalist economy where market forces operate, the miners need to carry on the war of attrition. The miners did not start it. The NCB decided to send in Mr. MacGregor. The NCB and the Government decided to take on the miners and smash the union if they could get away with it. It is our job to see that the miners' morale is kept up. I shall do my best to ensure that that happens.
I have no doubt at all that if we are to get an amnesty for all those miners who have been referred to today, the


way to do it is not to co-operate and collaborate with the NCB or the Government but to make sure that we have that bargaining power at the pithead.
Why should there be no amnesty? Why should there be victimisation? The House of Commons does not operate that sort of system. I well remember a few years ago when an ex-Tory Minister called Reginald Maudling got involved up to the neck in the Poulson scandal—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order.

Mr. Skinner: Yes. It is a bit warm, isn't it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is on his preamble, but he should make his remarks relevant to the scheme.

Mr. Skinner: I am talking about people who were removed from this place. There was a vote in the House which you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Reginald Maudling got an amnesty. The same was true of the ex-Liberal leader, Jeremy Thorpe, when he was director of London and County Securities which was trading falsely and breaking the law, touting for custom when it was on the verge of bankruptcy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the redundancy scheme.

Mr. Skinner: Yes. I am doing that. I am saying that, if the miners are to be fined in a court of law, and some of them not even that, and are then told by tinpot managers under the Government's direction—that is what it is really all about—that they will lose their jobs, then it is right and proper for me to say that other people in society and in this House of Commons have got away with the same thing. The same was true of the ex-Liberal leader, who was the director of London and County Securities, which was trading falsely and breaking the law. Yet that man still kept his job.
The same was also true of another former Member of Parliament called lain Sproat. He was another Tory. He had eight directorships and he failed to carry out the law and to file those accounts for several years under the Companies Act. But he kept his job. There was an amnesty for him. The list is as long as your arm. I challenge any Tory who is a director of a company to stand up and say that every one of his colleagues is carrying out the law of the land as set down in the Companies Act. I have a few more cases up my sleeve.
There is a lot of injustice in this world. We say that the miners have a right to be reinstated. Every one of them who fought for the right to work should be reinstated. They were not involved in a dispute about money, greed or materialism. The dispute was over saving their jobs, or saving the jobs of others. It was about preserving a future for the children in the community. Some of those who took part in the strike were on the verge of retiring, so they were not even fighting for their own jobs. They were fighting for someone else to have the job after they left. We want an amnesty for them all. We shall get it not by begging but by fighting. We should ensure that we operate on the basis of not supplying this Government with too much coal.
The order deals with concessionary coal. In recent times, the NCB has introduced a new system of taking coal away from pensioners. There used to be two sorts of householders. There were those who had retired from the

pits and their widows, who lived as householders. It did not matter whether they lived in flats, in bungalows, or in three-bedroomed houses in the private or public sector because they all qualified for five loads of coal a year. That was not a lot, but it was almost enough to get by on. The other category consisted of those living in lodgings, who were quasi-householders. The NCB now has another category. Apparently, it has now started measuring the square feet in any given bungalow or flat. If the figure is below a certain level, some coal is taken away. That is a scandal.
The Minister has been paid some compliments tonight. I shall not pay him any, because he played a wicked role during the strike. But will he get on to the NCB, and try to investigate why it is stealing coal from retired miners or pensioners who have gone into small flats or bungalows? That should be put right.

Mr. Beith: Is it not extremely unfair that concessionary coal should be withdrawn from a widow because she has gone out and scrubbed a few floors? After that date she will lose her concessionary coal for ever. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the NUM has done enough to end the withdrawal of that concessionary coal?

Mr. Skinner: Whether or not the NUM has done enough, I can say that I am not satisfied because the NCB has been so vindictive. The hon. Gentleman has just graphically illustrated again how deep the bitterness and hatred is within the NCB and the Government. In order to exact retribution from the miners, those who have served the industry, and who were not even involved in the strike, have been attacked.
There has been a lot of talk about the Minister dealing with the cases in which unemployment benefit has been lost. I believe that these people need retrospective payment, every single one of them, for every single week that they have lost. There must be no date at which it is said that the strike is now ended. We want full back pay for every single person who has been treated like the two or three I have mentioned in my constituency—people who have left the industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said. We have all had examples of that and we want to make sure that they get their back pay.
Those are just a few of the things that need to be dealt with. I can assure the Minister that we shall not be letting him or the Secretary of State off the hook. It is our job to see to it that we represent our mining constituents as well as the others.

Mr. Greg Knight: Most of yours continued working.

Mr. Skinner: Did yours?

Mr. Knight: I have not got any.

Mr. Skinner: We are going to make sure that we represent them, in order to keep pits open. We are going to see to it—at least, I am—that they do not make a rod for their own backs ever again. We are going to encourage them not to build up stocks so that the Government can have another Ridley plan ready to try and smash them into the ground. This debate has been important for that reason, if for no other.
We know that the redundancy payments will help people who have got the sack, but they will never be as good as those in the Common Market. Is it not a strange


irony that, although there is no money in this country to keep pits open, so the Government say, during the strike we had the galling experience of prospective redundant commissioners in the Common Market — a totally uneconomic unit of production, with no financial reserves—being made into vice-presidents three weeks before their retirement so that they could get a big, fat redundancy payment to which they would otherwise not be entitled? And this Government connived at it.
It is in that spirit that I speak tonight on behalf of the miners and others who have been victimised by the Government, and it is in that spirit that I intend to carry on.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) for not being here when he made his opening remarks, but I was on the Transport Bill in Committee and we were busy voting on certain clauses. I want to give him as much backing as I possibly can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is completely right. There certainly is a problem, as I found out myself this week from one of my old-age pensioners, over this concessionary fuel. It came as a terrific surprise to me when I was told that in a certain area of my town, because some rooms have been unclassified now, all of a sudden these old-age pensioners are losing 2 tons of coal a year. When they have been used to having it, this comes as a terrible shock to them.
It came as an even worse shock to me when I found this in the agreement, that it was what we had agreed to. How that slipped through I just do not know, but it is causing some problems, an the last thing we want in the mining industry at this time is more problems.
I agree with my hon. Friends representing other areas that there are problems concerning the adjudicating officer, because he seems to have taken a carte blanche decision about the whole industry. In our area, members who have finished with the coal board for one reason or another—nothing whatsoever to do with the strike—are finding that their unemployment pay, their DHSS pay, has been stopped because somebody somewhere on high has said that the industry is in dispute.
Some workers in my area lost not a day's work during the year of dispute. I do not argue about the rights and wrongs of that, but it seems odd that people who worked throughout the strike and who have now retired are deemed to be on strike. It is hard for people to understand and it has caused bitterness.
The Minister should take the adjudicator to one side. Perhaps he might have to twist his arm. I back my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover on this. Those affected were told to put in their appeals. However, the appeals were not dealt with during the dispute. A backlog has built up over the year.
Surely the adjudicator does not have to hear every case. One case should be enough. A decision to pay could be made after hearing one case. If the decision goes their way, applicants should be given back pay from the day that they made their application.

Mr. Barron: A man from the regional employment office in Leeds told me that he did not make a decision in

one case at one colliery because he did not want one man from a village working at one colliery to be paid when someone from the same village working at another colliery was not paid because no decision had been made for that pit. Perhaps we shall have to wait until the men at all the British coalfields are working normally.

Mr. Concannon: That is why I think that the Minister should settle the matter with the adjudicator. Letters from the DHSS and employment offices give us a breakdown of what is happening, but then we are told "This is your problem. You make the laws and you must sort out the difficulties." That is what I am told, in all friendliness, by the manager of my local DHSS office. The men in my area have not been on strike, but if they are no longer employed by the coal board for one reason or another, they are in difficulties.
I heard of the case last week of an 18-year-old lad who suddenly found that he was no longer employed in the coal industry. He does not have a penny a week to live on. Without his parents I do not know what he would so.
The Minister should pick up the phone tomorrow and say "For goodness sake, take one case, use it as a precedent, and pay the men." Payment should be from the date of application. That would take some of the bitterness away. I want to back up my hon. Friends from other areas. This has been a national decision—

Mr. Eadie: We want to know tonight who took the decision. It was not dreamed up in local areas. It was taken nationally. We want to know tonight if the Government connived in the decision. That is the question that must be answered tonight.

Mr. Concannon: When the problem arose, I was told first that the decision had been taken in Birmingham. When I tried to get hold of Birmingham, it turned out that the decision had been taken in London. It was a case of being caught up in Tebbit's law.
In my area people were working all the time, but those who became redundant or lost their jobs were caught up in the problem. They may have got sympathy but they were left without unemployment and other benefits. There is a lot of bitterness and misunderstanding. The Minister would do himself and many others a great favour if he got on the telephone tomorrow and said, "Get cracking on it; make a decision and then start paying the lads the money that is due to them."

Mr. Michael Morris: I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not go in for any arm-twisting. There are some of us who represent industrial areas who have seen the same thing happen before. It may come as a surprise to Opposition Members, but when there is a national overtime ban that is not normal working. Certainly it is not normal working in the shoe industry or in engineering in my constituency. It may seem like normal working to some people in the mining industry, but it is not normal working.
Cases have been mentioned that should be considered, but I hope my hon. Friend will not be tempted to go along the path of doing some arm-twisting just to meet a difficulty—

Mr. Barron: rose—

Mr. Morris: No. Nobody on the Opposition side gave way to me, and I am not giving way to anyone.
There are genuine anomalies that should be investigated. The processes of the law should be followed. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and other hon. Members have quoted cases that should be investigated.
Is it not remarkable, however, that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) should have gone on at some length about the victimisation of Scottish miners who have been dismissed? He tried to leave the House with the impression that not one of the 200 miners to whom he referred could possibly have been involved in violence. It is worth recording that of 10,372 alleged offences, there were 3 for murder, 5 for threatening to kill, 1,019 for criminal damage, 39 for assault causing grievious bodily harm and 429 for assault causing actual bodily harm. There are many more that in normal circumstances would have resulted in fines. If the hon. Member for Midlothian is suggesting—

Mr. Barron: rose—

Mr. Morris: I shall not give way.
If the hon. Member for Midlothian is suggesting that no miner in Scotland was involved in any of those crimes, he must think that we are a lot of fools.

Mr. Eadie: rose—

Mr. Morris: No. The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me and I shall not give way to him.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question.

Mr. Morris: No, I did not ask the hon. Gentleman a question. It was a rhetorical question. If he cannot understand the difference between a rhetorical and a genuine question, he ought not to be here.
The hard fact—and somebody has to say it—is that it was a political strike from the start. It was a contrived strike by the NUM. The pity of it is that the hon. Member for Midlothian did not seek tonight to mend some of the hurts. The industry has a future, as both he and I know. We have the best fossil fuel resources in Europe. The only way forward is to heal some of the wounds. I hope the next time that the hon. Member for Midlothian speaks in a debate on the coal industry, he will refer to the future of the industry and not look back on all the difficulties created during the past 12 months.
My hon. Friend the Minister has made a major contribution to the healing process. There is much work still to be done. I hope that all hon. Members will do their best to ensure that the industry succeeds.

Mr. David Hunt: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
I shall attempt to answer the many important points which have been raised, and will write to those hon. Members whose questions I do not have time to answer. I recognise the difficulty that will arise after 1 January 1986 because many miners will have insufficient national insurance contributions to qualify for social security benefits. I shall carefully consider the implications of that for the scheme. As the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) recognised, the problem will not arise until next year. It is too early for me to say what changes might be introduced.
The hon. Gentleman made accusations about law-breakers that were not true. It is a fact that NACODS this

morning sought leave to apply for a judicial review on the ground that the NCB had failed to undertake statutory consultation under section 46 of the 1946 Act, concerning in particular the proposed closure of Bedwas colliery, but in the generality also. It also sought an injunction to prevent the board from making any closure until the introduction of the revised colliery review procedure. The court refused it leave to challenge the board in that way. Therefore, I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can maintain that the NCB should be regarded as having breached the terms of the 1946 Act.
The hon. Gentleman attempted to rewrite the history of the dispute. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) was right to say that it was a wide aspect of the debate. However, it is right to stress that the NUM rejected the NACODS agreement in October and on several occasions in subsequent months. When we debated the issue on 4 February, that was still the case, as it was in the following days.
However, later the NUM did accept the NACODS agreement, and that was made clear to the TUC. It was that step that prompted the TUC to approach the Prime Minister on the basis that there was but a narrow gap between the NCB and the NUM. If the hon. Gentleman refers to the TUC document, he will note that clause 4 states:
The parties accept that it is of value to outline, at this stage, the procedures that flow from a commitment to modify the Colliery Review Procedure.
Accepting that the NACODS agreement was part of the final agreement between the NUM and the NCB, what were the consequences that would flow from that?
There was a crucial difference in the dispute between NACODS and the NCB and the dispute between the NUM and the NCB, and that was a major problem to overcome. The NUM, not NACODS, had been on strike on the main issue of uneconomic pits. Conservative Members and several Opposition Members have termed that as an irresponsible demand that no uneconomic pit should ever close. That issue had to be dealt with over and above acceptance of the NACODS agreement. That is why other clauses were in the document presented by the seven top trade union leaders to the NUM as the best deal that they thought was available.

Mr. Eadie: I am as tired as the Minister having spent six and a half hours at a national executive committee meeting in Sheffield and six hours on a train today. I hope that he will not rewrite history. I was present when the magnificent seven from the TUC went to the NUM. They did not have a TUC document but an a NCB one. I quoted what the Minister told the House on 4 February when we asked whether anything would have to be signed, and, if so, would the ACAS-NACODS agreement of October 1984 have been accepted. The Minister said no. He is now telling me that the NUM had to sign something in the document submitted by the TUC. We were told that it was negotiable of and capable interpretation but had to be signed before negotiations started. It is the Minister, not me, who is rewriting history. He gave an undertaking to the House on 4 February. I am accusing the Government of bad faith in not carrying it out.

Mr. Hunt: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not have it right. I have spent many hours, often late into the night, with those seven top trade union leaders. The hon. Gentleman has not denied that they went to the NUM


executive and presented that document — presented to them by the NCB—which was the subject of discussion between the TUC and the NCB. It was the best deal available. Time and again I have criticised the Opposition, because if only they had supported Norman Willis and the TUC, the document would have formed part of the final agreement. It would have been a just and honourable settlement. I accept that the hon. Gentleman and I disagree.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) made several telling points about disqualification and unemployment benefit. I assure the House that the social security commissioners, who ultimately determine entitlement to unemployment benefit under social security legislation, are entirely independent of government. There is no question of arm twisting. The commissioners are all barristers or advocates of at least 10 years' standing and, like judges, are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. It would not be proper for Ministers to try to influence them, and I hope that Opposition Members accept that no attempt has been made to do so in cases arising out of the coal dispute.

Mr. Barron: The House has some dealings with the commissioners, because it draws up the legislation that they operate. Why can people who have gone back to work at Faircroft be paid under legislation presented by Ministers when Mr. Hill, who has been dismissed and is no longer an employee, is deemed to be on strike and cannot get the same payment? It seems to me that there is something radically wrong.

Mr. Hunt: It would be improper for me to seek to interfere with the commissioners exercising their judicial jurisdiction.
I understand that a tribunal of commissioners will hear an appeal from a redundant miner on 16 April. Unlike the four appeals to date, which have been considered by individual commissioners, the decision of this tribunal will be binding on all similar cases. The decisions of the four appeals followed a series of commissioners' decisions and a decision of the tribunal of commissioners, which arose from the coal strike of 1972, as the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) mentioned. The commissioners stated that they were following the ratio decidendi of the stare decisis doctrine of the original decisions made in 1972.
I am told that the tribunal of 16 April will consist of the chief commissioner, Judge Bromley, and two other commissioners of longstanding, Mr. J. S. Watson and Mr. Morcom. When they make their decision, my colleagues and I shall examine it most carefully, as will many miners who have appeals to the commissioners outstanding. The payment of back benefit depends on the result of the tribunal hearing. The tribunal has power to backdate the benefit in full to the date of application. I hope that that clarifies the position and demonstrates that there can be no question of the Government interfering.

Mr. Eadie: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks. However, he must answer the point raised in the debate. Who took the decision? It was not taken in the individual areas, but it came down the line. Who told adjudicating officers that they could not pay? Who took the decision

and sent it to Yorkshire and Scotland and so on to say that the dispute had not ended and to instruct the adjudicating officers? We must know who took the decision that influences those people?

Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Member for Bolsover, (Mr. Skinner) stressed, the hon. Gentleman is looking for a scapegoat in the Government. He will not find one. The Government did not interfere or intervene. The adjudicating officers have stated that they were following a decision of commissioners of a tribunal in 1972, which is binding. Now we have a new tribunal at the highest level which will look at the position again. I suggest to the House that we await that decision and consider the position thereafter.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked about opencast workers. The terms of employment in the opencast coal industry are, as he knows, more like those in the civil engineering industry than in the deep mine coal industry. That is recognised. However, they are still a crucial part of the coal industry. Typically, opencast sites last only a few years, with men moving from one to another. By contrast, the redundant mineworkers' payment scheme is designed to alleviate hardship when a deep mine closes in a settled community, typically after 60 to 80 years of life. That is the difference. Obviously, I shall consider carefully his points.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said that the strike should never have happened and, of course, it should never have happened. As my right hon. Friend has stressed time and time again, the miners had before them the most generous offer since nationalisation. If only they had accepted it—they would have accepted it, if it had gone to a ballot—the damaging strike would never have occurred.

Mr. Hardy: I accept that the Minister assumed his office while the strike was underway. For months before the strike, some Opposition Members pleaded with the Secretary of State to take part in the tripartite arrangements so that he could tell the unions in the mining industry of the splendid deal. Is it not a pity—£6,500 million of pity—that he did not take our advice and avoid that appalling bitterness and expenditure?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the miners knew of the offer. It was explained to them. I could show him many documents in which it was set out clearly. Sadly, the miners were not given the opportunity to vote in a ballot. But we shall not get anywhere by looking into the past, as the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) raised many important points, which I shall consider. I disagreed with much of what he said, but he would not expect anything different, judging by his attitude and accusatorial finger, which pointed in my direction on several occasions.
I appreciated the kind remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), and I completely agree with him that successful low-cost production with a highly paid work force must be a major objective of any policies on the coal industry. I agree with his comments about Arthur Scargill. We do not wish continually to kick Arthur Scargill, but, my goodness, his members do it every day of the week. He is beaten in ballot after ballot after ballot. Of course, my hon. Friend is right to say that the Government's commitment to coal is as strong as ever. He


asked about the coal conversion scheme. The coal-firing scheme is a practical expression of our commitment to the future of the coal industry. It is impossible to say exactly how much of the £75 million has been used, since, on past experience, several applications that are in the pipeline may be withdrawn or may not merit a grant. Companies must continue to apply, as a useful amount remains in the fund.
As for the future, the Government will be reviewing the long-term future of the scheme later in the year, and we shall certainly take careful note of my hon. Friend's points.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I lose no opportunity to promote that excellent scheme, and later today I shall visit several firms in the west country that have converted successfully. I shall also open the National Coal Board's new office in Bristol. We shall continue to intensify the campaign.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley asked me to estimate the number of people who will be affected. This order merely amends the March 1984 order. The terms currently available will continue to apply until the end of March 1986. No decision is likely about a further order for the period beyond 1986 until much nearer that time, and any decision will depend entirely upon the circumstances then prevailing. But much will depend upon the numbers who come forward, so I do not have a figure to give to the House. The terms that are now available will still be available against the important background of no compulsory redundancy.
The strike has had a major impact on the coal industry. Now that it is over, the board must undertake a thorough review of the damage done and its actions for the future. But it is too early to say wht the outcome of the board's review might be and, hence, the numbers of men who may take voluntary redundancy in 1985–86 and thereafter.
I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter about Mr. MacGregor's decision to widen the executive, and I join the tribute paid by him to the work of Ian MacGregor as coal board chairman. I make that point clearly.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) also paid tribute to the new management structure, and I am delighted that it has such a blessing from this place. He raised the case of Les Hill. I say to Mr. Hill, through the medium of the Chamber, that not only did the hon. Gentleman raise the matter in tonight's debate but he has already made a detailed submission to the Secretary of State and to me. We shall consider carefully all the points that have been made.
I join the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). I am sad to hear that illness has prevented him from being in the Chamber tonight; indeed, many hon. Members said that it must have been something like that to have kept him away. He is responsible for the continual pressure to improve the redundant mineworkers pension scheme, and I pay tribute to him.
Several hon. Members have asked about dismissal. I hope that all hon. Members realise—we have said it

many times—that the dismissal and re-employment of employees are matters for the board. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South read out a relevant list of offences, but the board has made it clear that all cases are considered on their merits. The Government have said that that is a good policy. If hon. Members have evidence that the policy is not being followed, I shall consider carefully any points made.

Mr. Eadie: The Minister must not say that all cases will be considered on their merits. I told him in my opening speech about what has happened in Scotland. I told him what happened when I met Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Wheeler. There were more than 200 cases, and none was decided on its merits. It is a complete violation of the conciliation and consultative machinery. I was surprised by how neatly the Minister sidestepped my point that there is conciliation machinery in the industry, and that the board has violated it.

Mr. Hunt: I do not accept that, but I shall not drag out the debate. In Scotland, I know from the explanations given to me by the NCB, that each case was considered on its merits, and no one was dismissed for trivial offences.

Mr. Eadie: No.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member for Bolsover made some disgraceful comments about Michael Eaton. Mr. Eaton cares more deeply about the coal industry than the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the NUM does not listen to the hon. Gentleman's strictures, and I do not believe that it will. The message for hope for the future of the coal industry is that the moderates are defeating the militants. The ballot result, the decision yesterday—this has been a bad week for the hon. Member for Bolsover, and Mr. Scargill, but a good week for Britain.
The hon. Member for Bolsover, and the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) both spoke about concessionary coal. As they know, miners' and miners' widows' concessionary coal is determined by an agreement between the NCB an the NUM. The NUM negotiated a new agreement, containing the provisions to which the hon. Member for Bolsover has objected, in 1983. In the light of what has been said, I shall carefully consider all the points that have been raised on that agreement.
I sense that there has been unanimity in the debate that there should be a return to normal working next Wednesday. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) said that it will be a total victory for the Government. No — it will be a victory for common sense. This has been a useful and important debate. Let us now all agree to put the past well behind us. Let us get going with the urgent task of rebuilding our great industry. I hope that the House will support the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the draft Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Scheme) (Amendment) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With the leave of the House, I shall put all four motions on merchant shipping together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

MERCHANT SHIPPING

That the draft Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Cargo Ship Construction and Survey) Regulations 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Application of Construction and Survey Regulations to other ships) Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Navigational Equipment) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.—[Mr. Major.]

Question agreed to.

Heathrow Airport

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. Anthony Steen: This debate is about an issue that is central to the future of the British airline industry and particularly the future of domestic, independent, privately owned airlines. I am grateful that there are so many right hon. and hon. Friends attending the debate tonight, because they, like I, appreciate the importance of this issue.
From 1 April, the short-haul domestic and European flights into Heathrow in narrow-bodied aircraft will have their landing charges increased, while long-haul international flights into Heathrow in wide-bodied aircraft will have their landing charges reduced. The landing charges for the Short Brothers 361, which is flown by British Midland Airways, Air-UK and Air Ecosse among others, will rise from £64 to £156—an increase of 144 per cent. The landing charges of a Bryman de Havilland Dash 7 will rise from £93·60 to £156—an increase of 67 per cent. For a Boeing 747, however, charges will fall from £483·21 to £156 — a reduction of more than a third.
The memorandum of understanding signed last year by the United States and British Governments has created this problem and led to an alteration in the method of calculating landing charges at Heathrow, but nowhere else. Heathrow is to switch to a flat charge, whatever the weight of the aircraft or its potential damage to the runway. This flies in the face of document 9082/2, paragraph 14, dated November 1981, produced by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. This specifically states that landing charges should be weight-related. This results in United States and other long-haul airlines having a cut in costs while every independent private British airline will have its overheads dramatically increased.
The British Airport Authority's totals for landing charges a year reflect the position well. For 1984–85, landing charges totalled £7,916,000, which is to be reduced to £4,012,000 for 1985–86—a decrease of 49 per cent. for the biggest and noisiest planes. On domestic flights, landing charges will rise from £3,559,000 this year to a proposed £5,250,000 next year, an increase of 47 per cent. for the quiet planes of the domestic airlines.
What an outcry there would be if the Department of Transport were to raise the £100 private car tax to £1,000 a year and reduce the tax on giant juggernauts from the present £3,100 to £1,000, so that both paid a flat rate regardless of size, wear and tear on the roads and damage to the environment.
I declare an interest in British Midland Airways, but I am also interested in Dan Air, Air UK, Brymon and other small private airlines. All find that their landing charges and other airport expenses cost more than the fuel needed to run their planes; British Midland Airways' landing charges are now 36 per cent. of costs, whereas its fuel charges are 29 per cent.
On the east midlands to Heathrow route, British Midland will find a 32·58 per cent. increase in landing charges and a 47·1 per cent. increase in all its charges. Birmingham to Heathrow landing charges will increase by 32·8 per cent., or overall by 48 per cent. Brymon's landing


charges per day go up from £687·30 to £1,012·50 at Heathrow alone. How are these increases to be financed? Only by passing them on to the consumer.
The British Airways Authority's statement of principle dated 21 February 1985 said on page 3 in paragraph 9.4 that the authority
believes in the practice of gradualism with regard to landing charges.
If gradualism is an increase of 48 per cent., will the Minister ask the BAA for its definition of rapid change?
The BAA argues that the overall increase, taking all British Midland air routes together, is not that high—only 14·2 per cent., or three times the rate of inflation. To reach that figure, however, the BAA has had to engage in a cross-subsidy exercise, putting all British Midland Airways' charges together. By doing that, BAA is flying in the face of Government policy, as enshrined in the Civil Aviation Authority guidelines on pricing. In its statement of policy on air transport licensing for 1979–80, the Civil Aviation Authority said:
As a matter of principle, however, it is unacceptable that one passenger should be charged on a continuing and structural basis the cost of providing to another passenger the facilities which he himself does not need. Nor should passengers on profitable routes bear the costs of operating other routes which cannot be operated economically, even after emerging from the development stage.
In 1981–82, the Civil Aviation Authority stated:
the Authority will seek to ensure that users are charged only for those product features they require. The Authority aims progressively to diminish discrimination and cross-subsidisation between routes and between fare types.
For 1985–86, the CAA reiterates:
the Authority will seek to ensure that users are charged only for those product features they require. The Authority aims progressively to diminish discrimination and cross-subsidisation between routes and between fare types.
The BAA has done the same with British Airways' charges, cross-subsidising landing charges for narrow-bodied short haul routes with those for wide-bodied long haul routes, and has come up with a global figure of 4 per cent. as the overall increase for British Airways—below the rate of inflation. The state airline has been able to offset the dramatic increase in landing charges for domestic and European flights against the dramatic decreases in charges for long haul flights.
It is not only cross-subsidy on landing charges, however, for rumour—from the mouth of the stable boy rather than the horse—has it that British Airways lost £7·5 million on domestic routes last year and sustained its predatory actions only through cross-subsidy on an enormous scale.
The BAA argues that it is forced to increase landing charges at peak hours through opportunity costing, by which it places a value on a slot. It has warned that if that does not work—whatever that means—it will be forced to introduce rationing charges. As that was a point heavily criticised in discussions of the delayed Civil Aviation Bill, as the 275,000 air transport movements limit has not come into force, and as terminal 4 will not come on stream until the spring of 1986, will the Minister find out the basis on which the BAA is now introducing opportunity costing?
If the rationale behind opportunity costing is based on demand and lack of space, why, since Heathrow is only half as congested as Gatwick, does the BAA propose to continue with weight-related charges at Gatwick and all other BAA airports but not at Heathrow?
I have criticised the dramatic increase in landing charges for domestic airlines at Heathrow. The BAA is

placed in a difficult position. I hope, however, that it will do its utmost to support and encourage private enterprise in the smaller independents. The increases by the Labour-controlled Manchester airport are even worse, resulting in a £13 million profit this year, which has been channelled into the local authority.
A policy which could work against our independent airlines will rapidly disadvantage our regional airports, which act as engines of growth for regional economic revival. Our domestic operators must be able to run highly competitive services into Heathrow where interlining takes place with international routes. Any unnecessary increase in fares as a result of increased landing charges, jeopardises the domestic services, threatens the viability of our domestic airlines and could sever our regions' international connections.
I welcome the attendance of so many of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), but for his European duties, would have been in his place tonight to express his disquiet about landing charges on the Birmingham to Heathrow service and to add his voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birminham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre), who feels equally strong about the matter.
In recent years, there has been a growing interest, especially among business men, in short haul domestic and international air services from local and regional airports. I quote selectively from Michael Donne in last Monday's Financial Times:
One of the principal catalysts for this interest has been the emergence in recent years of a new generation of small economic airliners, … which have made it possible for many operators to launch new, profitable short-haul domestic and international operators.
The significance of this development should not be underestimated. For much of the post-war period, the history of UK civil aviation has been littered with the wreckage of plans for new air services, that foundered because the airlines involved did not have aircraft of the appropriate size. They started operators with aircraft far too large for the traffic densities available, with the result that they lost money, and went out of business.
The emergence of the new generation of small, cost-effective turbo-propellor airlines has substantially changed the situation … Moreover, their quieter noise levels make them acceptable neighbours for surrounding cost-conscious communities.
It is precisely these aircraft which will be worst affected by the new British Airports Authority landing charges. It appears that these are designed just to please the Americans.
British Midland Airways, Air UK and Brymon fly the new breed of super-quiet aircraft whose noise footprints do not reach beyond the perimeter of the airport at Heathrow, yet they have absolutely no incentive to continue this investment, as it is on the super-quiet aircraft where the largest increase in landing charges is taking place. I welcome the support of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground), and my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley).
Why does the highly profitable BAA need to rob the British domestic sector in order to make good the revenue lost from the American carriers? Why do British travellers have to subsidise American travellers? Why should regional airports be the losers? How are the smaller airlines supposed to absorb yet another increase in the costs of running vital feeder flights? Why does the environment have to suffer as a result of the disincentive towards investing in the quietest aircraft?
The chairman of Brymon Airways has put the matter so well:
The British premier airport should consist of an interwoven mixture of short-haul and long-haul flights together making up the total air transport product, and tariffs should be aimed at encouraging this mixture with a scale that takes account of the sector distance preceding and following Heathrow movements, rather than aiming at a flat-rate transit charge per passenger irrespective of their journey distance and fare paid.
The proposed new landing charges give a new twist to the Robin Hood theme, where the poor of Nottingham and the regions are now being robbed to help the rich transatlantic passenger.

Mr. Bill Walker: I must declare an interest, as I am the chairman of an airline. However, anything that I say this evening will not be directly related to the planned operations of that airline. I shall speak as someone who I judge to be a friend of the British Airports Authority.
The BAA is an essential and profitable part of the air transport industry of the United Kingdom. It is up to it to nurture and facilitate the growth and development of United Kingdom commuter airlines. The level of landing charges can therefore be seen either as an attempt to promote growth or an attempt to stultify it. It must examine carefully its policy on landing charges as they affect the development of the commuter airlines.
I hope that there is no truth in the allegations that I heard earlier today to the effect that in future the credit facilities which until now have been available to domestic commuter airlines are to be altered savagely to the detriment of the airlines. If this were to happen, I should see it as a deliberate attempt by the profitable part of the British air transport facility to take advantage of the less profitable, more difficult and higher risk area. The losers could be only those who try to commute from various parts of the United Kingdom. As a regular commuter from Scotland, I have something to say about the matter. I should look with some hostility on any move that was seen to be a deliberate attempt to reduce the facilities that are presently available to commuter airlines.

Mr. David Ashby: The east midlands airport is within my constituency. British Midland Airways, other domestic airlines and Orion airways, operate from that airport. This pricing policy is an attempt to deal differently with the Civil Aviation Bill. Capacity at Heathrow airport is being dealt with by pricing out the super quiet aircraft.
The private sector is suffering. Private sector airlines, such as British Midland Airways, will be squeezed out, with the advantage going to foreign airlines and our large airlines which operate on protected routes, and therefore are happy.
The Government have a part to play because of the memorandum of understanding. On consideration of the Civil Aviation Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
One option might be to raise landing fees, on the assumption that the airlines prepared to pay the most for slots would be those that would make the most productive use of them. However, we believe that landing charges would have to be more than doubled to produce a significant reduction in demand, since they form a

relatively small proportion of an airline's operating costs. That would be very hard on small airlines and commuter airlines, which have a part to play."—[Official Report, 21 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 306.]
I call on my right hon. Friend to follow those words through and to do something about these excessive landing charges.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) for allowing me the opportunity to intervene. Norwich airport lies in my constituency and Air UK operates out of it. If the British Airways Authority continues to squeeze the small airlines as it is doing at present, in the long-term this will mean lost jobs for Norwich. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams and other hon. Friends, I am concerned about the proposed increase in landing charges. Air UK has cited an increase of 85 per cent.
The position at Heathrow is unique. The landing charge for a 747 during peak hours is identical to the landing charge for the small aircraft, the Shorts 360 and the F27. That cannot be right, especially since Air UK uses Heathrow at those peak times.

Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is now no shortage of space at Heathrow? As the limit has not been fixed at 275,000 movements, 50,000 or 60,000 slots are spare. It is odd that BAA has decided on financial measures that are not weight related for domestic airlines at Heathrow, but that traffic that is much more crowded still incurs the old weight-related charges.

Mr. Thomson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. This confirms the case that has been put across tonight, that the proposed landing charges are unfair on the small airlines. Apparently, consideration has not been given to the fact that the small aircraft are quiet. The environmental point is worth putting across. I support my hon. Friend in that idea.
Norwich and east Anglia have good industrial and growth prospects. Surely those who live in the area have an equal right to travel to Heathrow. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should take that aspect into account when planning. I hope that he will have the interests of the small airlines at heart and will insist on fair landing charges that ensure competition and improved services for people, especially those from Norwich and east Anglia.

Mr. David Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) for allowing me to intervene briefly. I can usefully add little to his excellent exposition, although he delivered it at breakneck speed, causing great consternation to the Hansard writers.
The House will shortly be asked to vote on a coherent airport policy. We all want such a policy, although we may disagree about the size of Stansted, terminal five, and so on. If we allow the proposal for a 144 per cent. charge on the Air Ecosse flights from Carlisle to Heathrow to go through, even if it is ameliorated to a 72 per cent. charge, it will destroy regional airports like Dundee, Carlisle, Leeds, Bradford, Norwich and East Midlands. If that happens, we shall not have a coherent airports policy


which would work in this country. We must have a coherent airports policy. To have that, we cannot allow this charge to go through.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) for allowing me to intervene in the debate, too. My constituents use Birmingham international airport and are directly affected by the proposal of the British Airports Authority which would increase fares from Birmingham international to Heathrow by about 12 per cent. I believe this to be against the interests of my constituents. I also believe it to be hostile to the interests of Heathrow, which in part depends upon the domestic feeder services, both in and out, to maintain its preeminent position in Europe, and to the interests of the regions.
I particularly deplore the 144 per cent. increase in landing charges for the Shorts SD360 which is a "good neighbour" — an American expression — aeroplane, in that its noise footprint scarcely extends beyond the airport perimeter.
Finally, I believe that this problem really arises because the British Airports Authority is required by the Government to finance its capital programme out of revenue. I believe that capital developments of this nature should be financed from long-term bonds raised on the capital markets. If there is one message that I can give to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, it is that these developments should be financed on a long-term basis.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): It is a great tribute to the pulling power of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) that at this late hour the debate has attracted so many contributions. My hon. Friends the Members for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), and for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) have all made powerful points. They will perhaps forgive me if time does not allow me to answer their points directly in great detail.
I turn in detail to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams. The debate that he has launched gives me the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's firm commitment to a multi-airline policy, to the further liberalisation of domestic air services and to ensuring that domestic services from regional airports have access to the London airport system. My hon. Friend, with his knowledge of the aviation industry, will know that all these policies place increasing pressure on airport capacity in the south-east. The questions that he has put before the House tonight certainly bear strongly on one major constraint—runway capacity at Heathrow.
To give a full answer my hon. Friends I would need to discuss the Government's strategy towards airports not only in the south-east but in the regions. This point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams will know that until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction announce their decision on the

inspector's report on Stansted and terminal 5, that is impossible for me to do. Nevertheless, I can give answers to some of the points my hon. Friend has raised.
My hon. Friend has asserted that the BAA's proposed charges at Heathrow for 1985 are intended to ration access and, what is more, to do so in a way which discriminates against the quieter aircraft operated by the smaller independent British airlines in favour of the large aircraft which generate more revenue per movement for the BAA.
I remind my hon. Friend that the matter of airport charges is for the British Airports Authority, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot intervene. The Airports Authority Act 1975 does, however, require the BAA to consult users, and I have encouraged the authority to provide a full exchange of information with the airlines so that they can comment on any proposal to increase charges. I am pleased to say that in the present instance, having consulted the airlines, the BAA substantially modified its charges from those which were originally proposed.

Mr. Steen: I understand that British Midland Airways was going to have its overall landing charges increased by 48 per cent. but that the charges have been brought down to 14 per cent. after the discussions.

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is correct. I was going on to say that the BAA has modified its original proposals by introducing, in the way that my hon. Friend implied, a peak/off peak differential for aircraft up to 50 tonnes. The landing fees for those aircraft will not now increase at all in off peak periods and will be subject to the new flat fee only in peak periods which extend from 7 am to 10 am and from 5 pm to 7 pm from April to October.
We have to accept that the BAA is constrained by international agreements. Those were reinforced by undertakings given in the out-of-court settlement agreement to the recent legal action brought by 17 foreign carriers which was resolved only two years ago.
The BAA is required to relate the structure of its prices to the structure of its costs — those being the full economic costs to the community. That precludes discrimination either in favour of or against any class of user. As a nationalised industry, the BAA also has to have regard to an overall objective of securing the most efficient allocation of resources. That means that it must ensure that charges for peak usage bear some relationship to opportunity costs where there is scarcity of capacity.
My hon. Friend has mentioned that the BAA has abandoned the weight-related runway charges favoured by ICAO. That is increasingly true of Gatwick as well as Heathrow. However, as my hon. Friend will know, airport charges consist of three elements — a landing fee, a passenger charge and an aircraft parking charge. In recent years the emphasis has been moving away from the weight-related landing charges towards the passenger charge since that is where the bulk of BAA's costs lie, and that move clearly benefits the smaller airlines.
Present traffic revenues at Heathrow break down as follows — 20 per cent. from landing charges, 60 per cent. from passenger charges, and 20 per cent. from aircraft parking charges. As a result, large aircraft pay considerably higher airport charges than small aircraft even though, during peak runway periods, their landing fees are the same.
The effect of the new structure will be to increase the overall average airport charges at Heathrow by 1 per cent.


That means that the airport charges paid averaged across the total number of passengers will increase from £3·53 to £3·57 per passenger. In its present pattern of activity, British Midland Airways average charge on a per passenger basis will increase from £2·22 to £2·54, an increase of 32p per passenger. Charges paid on individual services will, of course, vary according to the scheduled operating time. Those in off peak periods will not increase at all.
My hon. Friend has said that the increases would seem to be discriminating against the quieter aircraft. Airport charges are intended to reflect actual costs, though noise rebates have meant that the operators of non-noise certificated jet aircraft have been paid more than the operators of quieter aircraft. The BAA has decided to discontinue the noise rebates and instead to surcharge noisy aircraft, but the purpose is the same. Those higher charges would help to pay for the measures to alleviate the effect of noise, such as noise insulation grants. The BAA is giving thought to the noise-related charging schemes which might be used in future when all aircraft meet the noise certification requirements.
I am sure that there will be general support for noise surcharges. For their part, the Government have taken the necessary steps to ban the use of aircraft, other than Concorde, which are not noise-certificated.
The White Paper on aviation competition policy has made clear the Government's commitment to a strong

independent sector of the aviation industry. I assure my hon. Friend that we support the independent domestic airlines and their continued presence at Heathrow. Perhaps I should say in passing that BMA currently carries charges per passenger at Heathrow which are only 63 per cent. of the Heathow average. I realise that he was speaking not just about BMA. After April, those will be only 71 per cent. of the average charges at Heathrow.
That having been said, I assure my hon. Friends who asked for such an assurance that when we come to announce our overall policy on airports—this is perhaps the most important part of what I have to say—we shall pay full regard to the importance of developing a domestic airline industry comprised of several independent operators.
We shall also have strong regard to the requirements of regional airports. That means that we must ensure proper access for smaller airlines and smaller aeroplanes to the London system. I believe that will meet the main thrust of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams.
We cannot, however, ignore the fact that runway capacity in the south-east is now scarce. It is bound therefore to be expensive. The Government will be addressing themselves to this problem in the next few months.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Two o'clock.